2008 SCC 16 109 . 2008 SCALE 12 102 . 2009 AIR SC 31 . 2008 KERLT 3 969 .

2009 SCJ
2 582 . 2009 ALT CRI 1 318 . 2008 AIR SC 6882 . 2008 SUPREME 7 351 . 2009 CRLJ
346 . 2008 CRIMES 4 236 . 2008 UJ 2 1051 . 2008 JT 9 488 . 2008 SCR 12 949 . 2008 AD
SC 9 507 . 2008 CCR 3 467 . 2008 SLT 7 317 . 2008 AIOL 991 . 2010 SCC CRI 4 211 .
2009 CRI LJ 346 . 2009 CRLJ SC 346 . 2008 AIR SCW 6882 . 2008 KLT 3 969 . 2008
CRIMES SC 4 236 .

Hari Singh Gond v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .

Supreme Court Of India (Aug 29, 2008)

CASE NO.

Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2007, decided on August 29, 2008

ADVOCATES

Y.S Dalal and Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advocates, for the Appellant;
Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, for the Respondent.
JUDGES

Dr. Arijit Pasayat

Dr. M.K Sharma, JJ.

IMPORTANT PARAS

1. 4. Motilal, the father of Shyamlal told him that Hari Singh had slapped him on his
cheek and had also kicked him at his back and by taking lathi and trishul he ran
after him, then he also ran away. Then the accused started beating deceased Harilal
with stick and the accused hit Harilal several times due to which Harilal died. Then
the accused put some grains on fire which were lying in that room, due to which not
only the house caught the fire but Harilal was also burnt. The incident was reported
by Shyamlal in writing to Police Chowki Maneri of Police Station Bija Dandi at
9.00 a.m in the morning and the report is Ext. P-1.

2. 5. On conducting the post- mortem of Harilal, the whole dead body was found to
have been burnt, there were many injuries on his body and there was fracture in the
head and all the injuries were ante-mortem.

SUMMARY

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 1 of 7

Facts:

The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of
the Penal Code, 1860 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Case No. 66
of 1995. The conviction was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court at Jabalpur. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and
three years respectively. The appellant pleaded innocence and the trial was held. The
prosecution stated that the deceased was the maternal grandfather- in- law of the
accused and on the night of the incident, the accused, the deceased and his samdhi,
Motilal were sleeping in the same house.
Issue:

Whether Section 84 IPC has application in the present case?

Decision:

The trial court and the High Court have, on the facts of the case, rightly held that
Section 84 IPC has no application. The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code exonerates a person from liability for doing an
act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either
incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the
accused. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or
compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the
law contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated M'Naughton rules
of 19th century England. The trial court and the High Court have, on the facts of the
case, rightly held that Section 84 IPC has no application.
Disposition:

The appeal is dismissed.

Keywords:

Section 84 IPC, unsoundness of mind, criminal responsibility

Comments:

The appellant- accused is in custody since 23-1-1996 and Section 339 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has application. No opinion has been expressed in that
regard.

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. — Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur confirming the conviction of
the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code,

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 2 of 7

1860 (in short “IPC”) as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions
Case No. 66 of 1995 who imposed sentences of imprisonment for life and three years
respectively.
2. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, during trial are as follows:
Harilal Gond (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was the maternal
grandfather- in- law of the accused and on the night of incident the accused, the
deceased and his samdhi, Motilal were sleeping in the same house.
3. Shyamlal (PW 1), son-in-law of the deceased brought his son-in-law, accused Hari
Singh on 23-2-1995 to Mohda from Singanpuri for treatment. On 25-2-1995, in the
evening Motilal (PW 2), the father of Shyamlal and his samdhi i.e the deceased and
the son- in- law i.e accused Hari Singh were sleeping in the same room after having
their meal. Shyamlal alone was sleeping in his room. Shyamlal got up around 3-3.30
a.m after hearing the shouting of his son-in-law who was pushing his door. Then the
accused ran towards him to beat and in fact beat Shyamlal with the lathi which he
was carrying in his hand. Shyamlal ran away and went to the house of Baldan. After
some time he observed that his house was burning. Then he came running towards his
house and conveyed the same to the villagers. When he went along with villagers to
his house then the villagers Mulloo Singh , Chamru Singh , etc. caught hold of accused
Hari Singh and they observed that there was a fire in the room where Harilal, the
father-in-law of Shyamlal was sleeping and his father-in-law was burnt and had died.
4. Motilal, the father of Shyamlal told him that Hari Singh had slapped him on his
cheek and had also kicked him at his back and by taking lathi and trishul he ran after
him, then he also ran away. Then the accused started beating deceased Harilal with
stick and the accused hit Harilal several times due to which Harilal died. Then the
accused put some grains on fire which were lying in that room, due to which not only
the house caught the fire but Harilal was also burnt. The incident was reported by
Shyamlal in writing to Police Chowki Maneri of Police Station Bija Dandi at 9.00 a.m
in the morning and the report is Ext. P-1.
5. On conducting the post-mortem of Harilal, the whole dead body was found to have
been burnt, there were many injuries on his body and there was fracture in the head
and all the injuries were ante-mortem.
6. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded innocence,
trial was held. The trial court relied on the evidence of eyewitness Motilal (PW 2)
while Kali Bai (PW 4) corroborated the statement of the eyewitness about the unusual
behaviour of the accused. The trial court found the evidence to be cogent and
accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as noted above. It did not
accept the plea that Section 84 IPC has application. In appeal before the High Court
the stand about unsoundness of mind and protection under Section 84 IPC was
pressed into service.
7. The prosecution on the other hand submitted that Section 84 has no relevance or

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 3 of 7

application. The High Court accepted the State's stand and accordingly dismissed the
appeal.
8. In the present appeal it was submitted that the unusual behaviour of the accused
has been stated even by the eyewitnesses, PW 2 and PW 4 and, therefore, the courts
below were not justified in rejecting the plea of protection under Section 84 of the
Act.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of
the trial court and the High Court.
10. “7. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged
unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of ‘unsoundness of mind’ in IPC. The
courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the
term ‘insanity’ itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying
degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso
facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal
insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with
medical insanity. The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which
arises by virtue of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘the Evidence Act’)
and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused
committed the act with which he is charged. The burden on the accused is no higher
than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding. (See Dahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State Of Gujarat. AIR 1964 SC 1563.) In dealing with cases
involving a defence of insanity, distinction must be made between cases, in which
insanity is more or less proved and the question is only as to the degree of
irresponsibility, and cases, in which insanity is sought to be proved in respect of a
person, who for all intents and purposes, appears sane. In all cases, where previous
insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations have to be borne in mind.
Mayne summarises them as follows:

‘Whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in a
manner which showed a desire to concealment; whether after the crime, the offender
showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detections, whether after his
arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements. All facts of this sort are
material as bearing on the test, which Bramwall, submitted to a jury in such a case:
“Would the prisoner have committed the act if there had been a policeman at his
elbow?” It is to be remembered that these tests are good for cases in which previous
insanity is more or less established.’

These tests are not always reliable where there is, what Mayne calls, ‘inferential

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 4 of 7

insanity’.

8. Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the
ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable
of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or
contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he
was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either
that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the
nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was
doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he
knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it
was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where
during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an
honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that
evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the
prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus,
however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused
shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards,
also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is
presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also
presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts.

9. There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of
sound mind) i.e (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos by illness; (3) a lunatic or a
mad man; and (4) one who is drunk. An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from
his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be
idiots who cannot count twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know
their fathers or mothers, or the like, (see Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and
Practice, 35th Edn., pp. 31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn., Vol.
1, p. 105; 1 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 34). A person made non compos mentis by
illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under the
influence of this disorder, (see 1 Hale PC 30). A lunatic is one who is afflicted by
mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason,
(see Russell, 12th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 103; Hale PC 31). Madness is permanent. Lunacy
and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity.

10. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law i.e actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 5 of 7

intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur; but in the
case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will
(furiosi nulla voluntas est).

11. The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that
at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he
was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law
then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the
benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence
takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken
into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon
arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of
mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a
ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen in History of the Criminal
Law of England, Vol. II, p. 166 has observed that if a person cuts off the head of a
sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up,
would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of
knowing the physical effects of his act. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to
realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of
ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be
presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive
for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of
legal insanity, bring the case within this section. This Court in Sheralli Wali
Mohammed v. State Of Maharashtra. 1973 4 SCC 79 held that: (SCC p. 79)

‘… The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife
and children or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was
broke open, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary
mens rea for the commission of the offence.’

12. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive

behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law
contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated M'Naughton rules of
19th century England. The provisions of section 84 are in substance the same as that
laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of
Lords, in M'Naughton case 1843 4 St Tr NS 847 HL . Behaviour, antecedent,
attendant and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 6 of 7

condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is
difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission
of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the
offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. A
lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of
the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the
person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean
complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So,
if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason,
memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent
symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient.

13. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard,

adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused
is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and
mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had
affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the
past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was
subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or
that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this
section.”*

11. The trial court and the High Court have, on the facts of the case, rightly held that
Section 84 IPC has no application.
12. It is submitted that the appellant- accused is in custody since 23-1-1996 and
Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “CrPC”) has
application. We express no opinion in that regard.
13. Appeal is dismissed.

Printed by licensee : Shome Bhattacharjee (Student) Page 7 of 7