Holding

Section 84 IPC does not apply where the accused, at the material time of the offence, was aware of the nature and wrongfulness of his act, and the burden of proving unsoundness of mind was not discharged.

Summary

Hari Singh Gond was convicted of murder and related offences for beating his father‑in‑law, Harilal Gond, and setting fire to the house, resulting in the victim's death. The appellant claimed protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, asserting that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court examined the legal test for insanity, emphasizing that the burden of proving unsoundness of mind rests on the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act and must be established at the material time of the crime. The Court held that the appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the incident demonstrated knowledge of the nature and wrongfulness of his acts, and no medical evidence of insanity was produced. Consequently, the defence under Section 84 was rejected and the conviction upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the accused can successfully invoke the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC in a murder case.
Who bears the burden of proof for insanity and what standard applies under Section 84 IPC and Section 105 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the material time for assessing insanity is the time of the offence and what evidence is required to establish it.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defence despite alleged prior history of mental disorder.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 339
Indian Evidence Act, 1972s. 105
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 84

Subjects

Section 84 IPCinsanity defenceburden of proofmurderevidencecriminal lawmental disorderIndian Penal CodeIndian Evidence Actappellate review

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 949

HARi SINGH GOND A
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2007)
AUGUST 29, 2008
B
.-,...J [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ]

Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 84 and 302 - Accused in a murder trial claiming c
protection uls 84 - HELD: Burden of proof rests on accused
to prove his insanity and is not so onerous as that upon the
prosecution to prove the charge - Crucial point of time for
deciding whether benefit of s. 84 should be given or not is the
material time when the offence took place - Where during the D
investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the
... duty of the 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 E
- On facts, trial court and High Court rightly held s. 84 not
applicable - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105.
The appellant was prosecuted for commission of
offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 IPC, on the
-~'
allegations that in the night between 25th and 25th F
February, 1995, the father and father-in-law of PW-1 and
the accused, who was the son-in-law of PW-1, were
sleeping in one room in the house of PW-1; at around 3-
3.30 A.M. PW-1 heard shouts of the accused who was
_,. pushing his door; the accused then ran towards him and G
beat him with a stick; PW-1 ran out of the house and
-'I
noticing that the house had caught fire, he brought some
villagers who caught hold of the accused; they saw father-
in-law of PW-1 lying dead in the room with his body
949 H
'.
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A burning; the father of PW~1 toid that the accused kicked
,.
and slapped him and hit the deceased with stick several
times causing his death and then put some grains on fire
as a result of which the house caught fire and the
deceased was also burnt. The postmortem report
B indicated that the whole body of the deceased had. burnt
and all the injuries thereon were ante mortem. The trial \..--:.
court convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC and held that
s.84 IPC was not applicable. The High Court affirmed the i
conviction.
c In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was
contended for the appellant that the trial court and the
High Court were not justified in rejecting the plea of
protection u/s 84 IPC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test of
responsibility in cas~s of alle.ged unsoundness of mind. ~
There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the
:IPC. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression
E as equivalent to insanity. A distinction is to be made
between legal insanity and medical insanity. A Court is
concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity.
Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible
impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords
F no protection under Section 84. The standard to be applied '
is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted A.
by reasonable men .• the act was right or wrong. [Paras 5,9 ~
and 10] [954,E; 954,F; 957,G; 958,D] J
M Naughton's case (1843) 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847...;. referred to. \
G ,\
1.2 By virtue of s. 105 of the Evidence Act, 1972, the ~
~
'
burden of proof rests on the accused to prove his insanity, ~
and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to )

prove the charge. The burden on the accused is no higher 1,-

than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil r
HARi SINGH GOND v. STATE OF M.P. 951

proceeding. In dealing with cases involving a defence of A
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 san,. s
[para 5] [954,G-H; 955,A-B] .
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat 1964 (7) SCR 361 =AIR
1964 SC 1563 - relied on.
1;3 Where during the investigation previous history c
of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of the 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
0
·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 immediate!ly
afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition arjd
other relevant factors. [para 6] [955,H; 956,A-B]
E
Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, Evidence a_nd Practice,
35th Edn. pp.31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors,
12th Edn. Vol. I, p.103 and 105 - referred to.
1.4 Section 84 IPC itself provides that the benefit is
available only after it is proved that at the time of F
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 pr
contrary to law then this section must be applied. The G
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 H
.!:--

952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from
~he character of the crime. [para 9] [956,H; 957,A-C]

Shera// Walli Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra 1972
Cr.LJ 1523 (SC) - referred to.
s 'History of the Criminal Law of England' by Stephen,
Vo. II, page 166 - referred to.
2. The trial Court and the High Court have, on the
facts of the case,· rightly held that Section 84 IPC has no
application. [para 11] [958,F]
c
Case Law Reference
1964 (7) SCR 361 relied on para 5
1972 Cr.LJ 1523 ($C) referred to para 9
D CRIMINALAPPELLATE jLJRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 321 of 2007
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17 .1.2005 of t-
the High Gourt of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal
Appeal No. 410 of 1996
E
Y.S. Dalal and Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Appellant.
Vibha Datta makhija for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1;Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High l
Court at Jabalpur confirming the conviction of the appellant for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') as recorded by learned
G Sessions Judge Mandia in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1995 who
imposed sentences of imprisonment for life and three years
respectively.
2. £ackground facts, as projected by the prosecution,
during trial are as follows:
H
. ,•

HARi SINGH GOND v. STATE OF M.P. 953
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

IJ) -t Harilal Gond (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') A
was the maternal grandfather in law of the accused and in the,
night of incident accused, deceased and his samdhi Motil al'
were sleeping in the same house.
Shyamlal (PW1), son in law of the deceased brought his'
son in law accused Hari Singh on 23.2.1995 to Mohda from 8
~--4;
Singanpuri for treatment. On 25.2.1995 in the evening Motilal
(PW2) the father of Shyamlal and his samdhi i.e. deceased and·
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 after hearing the shouting c
of his son in law who was pushing his door. Then accused ran
towards him to beat and in fact beat Shyamial with the lathi which
he was carrying in his hand. Shyamlal ran away and went to the
house of Baldan. After sometime he observed that his house
was burning. Then he came running towards his house and D
conveyed the same to the villagers. When he went alognwith
villagers to his house then the villagers Mulloo Singh, Chamrl.l
~
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 E
died. Motilal the father of the Shyamlal told him that Hari Singh
had slapped him at his cheek and had also kicked him at his
back and by taking lathi and trishul he ran after him, then he alsq
ran away. Then accused started beating deceased Harilal with
stick and accused hit Harilal several times due to which Harila'I F
' died. Then accused put some grains on fire which were lying in
J
that room, due to which not only the house caught the fire but
Harilal was also burnt. The incident was reported by Shyam Lal
in writing to police chowki Maneri of police station Bija Dandi at
9.00A.M. in the morning and the report is Ex. P-1. On conducting
G
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.
After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since accused
pleaded innocence, trial was held. H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

f'-
A The trial court relied on the evidence of eye witness Moti
Lal (PW 2) while Kali Bai (PW 4) corroborated the statement
of eye witness about the unusual behaviour of the acc'used.
The trial court found the evidence to be cogent and
accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as
B noted above. lt did not accept the plea that Section 84 IPC h~~
. - . \

application. In appeal before the High Court the stand about .\.---'
unsoundness of mind and protection under Section 84 IPC
was pressed into service.

c The prosecution on the other hand submitted that Section
84 has no relevance or application. High Court accepted State's
stand and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
3. In the present appeal it was submitted that the unusual
behaviour of the accused has been stated by even the eye witness
D PW2 and PW 4 andr therefore, the courts below were notjustified
in rejecting the plea of protection under Section 84 of the Act.
4. Le~rned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
....
supported the judgment of the trial court and ·the High Court.

E 5. 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 the IPC. 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
F to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every
person, who is mentally dis~ased, is not ipso facto exempted l_
from criminal responsibility. A distinction is tq be made between
legal insanity and medical insanity. A Court is concerned with
legal insanity, and nqt with medical insanity. The burden of pro~f
rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which arises by virtue
G
of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (in short the
'Evidence Act') and is riot 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 n6 higher
than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in Cl civii
H
HARi SINGH GOND v. STATE OF M.P. 955
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
~
proceeding. (See Oahyabhai v: State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC A.
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, B
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; whe!her it was done in a manner which showed a c
desire to concealment ; whether after the crime, the
offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts
to avoid detections whether, afi9r his arrest, he offered
false excuses and made false statements. All facts of this
sort are material as bearing on the test, which Bramwall, D.
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 E
there is, what Mayne calls, "inferential insanity".
6. 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 F
_,,.>
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 G·
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 H
956 SUPREME COL)RT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest
investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination
qnd 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,
8 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
C prosecution has not to establish these facts.
7. 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
D 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
E on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn. Vol., p.105; 1 Hala's
Pleas of the Grown 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 his disorder, (See 1
Hale PC 30). A lunatic is .one who is afflicted by mental disorder
F only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of
reason, (See Russell, 12 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.
8. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal
G law, i.e., actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea" (an act does
not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty 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 (furios is nu/la voluntas est).
H 9. The section itself provides that the benefit is available
HARi SINGH GOND v. STATE OF M.P. 957
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
--1
only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the A
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 B
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 c
faculties of the mind that can form a ground of: exemption from
criminal responsibility. Stephen in 'History of the Criminal Law
of England, Vo. II, page 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 D
a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of
knowing the physical effects of his act. The law recognizes
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,
E
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
Shera/I Walli Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra: (1972 Cr.LJ
1523 (SC)), held that the mere fact that no motive has been F
~
proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact
that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken
open would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not
have necessary mens rea for the offence. Mere abnormality of
mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive G
).
behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section
84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based
on the outdated 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
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A by the House of Lords, in M Naughton's case (1843) 4 St. Tr.
(NS) 847. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to
the event! may be relevant in finding the mental 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
8
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
C judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean
complete or prefect 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
D the vi.olent symptoms of the disorder is ·not sufficient.
1O.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
E and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his
intellect weak arid 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
F 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 accused-appellant is in custody
G since 23.1.1996 and Section 339 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C') has application. We
express no opinion in that regard.
13. Appeal is dismissed.

H R.P. Appeal dismissed.