Holding

The appellant proved unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence and is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.

Summary

ShriKant Anandrao Bhosale, a police constable, was convicted of murdering his wife by striking her with a grinding stone during a quarrel and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, claiming he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offence and thus entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution argued the killing resulted from extreme anger, not insanity. The Supreme Court examined medical evidence showing a family history of psychiatric illness, multiple hospitalisations, and a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, concluding that the appellant was under a delusional attack at the time of the act. The Court held that the burden of proving insanity under Section 105 of the Evidence Act rests on the accused but is satisfied by a pre‑ponderance of evidence, and the totality of circumstances established his unsoundness of mind. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The burden of proof for establishing insanity under Section 84 IPC and Section 105 Evidence Act.
Whether the medical evidence of chronic paranoid schizophrenia proves unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence.
Whether the defence of extreme anger negates the claim of insanity.
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained in view of the alleged insanity.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 105
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 84

Subjects

insanity defenseSection 84 IPCburden of proofparanoid schizophreniacriminal lawmental illnessIndian Evidence Actextreme anger

Judgment

A SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

B
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84:

C Insanity-Benefit of-Entitlement to-Held, state of mind of the accused
at the time of commission of offence to be inferred from the circumstances to
prove insanity to claim benefit of the exception-Accused suffering from
Psychiatric illness indulged in quarrel with his wife and hit her on her head
resulting in her death-Under the circumstances, reasonable inference could
be drawn that accused was under a delusion at the time of commission of
D crime-Thus, he is entitled to the benefit of general exceptions under Section
84-Evidence Act, 1872; Section I 05.

Accused-appellant indulged in a quarrel with his wife, and hit her
with a grinding stone, on her head. Consequently she died. Trial Court
E found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
him to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction and
sentence. Hence this appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that accused was suffering from
insanity at the time of killing his wife and thus entitled to benefit of general
F exceptions under Section 84 IPC. On behalf of the State, it was contended
that accused killed his wife during fit of extreme anger.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The· burden of proving the existence of circumstances
G bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused
under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act; the Court shall presume
the absence of such circumstances. Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the
accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to
get the benefit of the exception. The unsoundness of mind preceding
occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. Regarding the
H 612
SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ' 6] 3

state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence, A
ordinarily that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances.
Further, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher
than that which rests upon a ·party to civil proceedings.
1617-A; 618-F, G, H; 619-AJ

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gzljarat, 11964) 7 SCR B
361, relied on.

2. In the instant case, it is the totality of the circumstances seen in
the light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant was suffering
from paranoid schizophrenia. It has been proved that there was a family C
history of psychiatric illness. The accused-appellant and his father were

-
suffering from the ailment. From the circumstances of the case clearly an
inference could reasonably be drawn that the appellant was under a
delusion at the time of commission of offence. He was under an attack of
the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not
ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of D
burden on the appellant, the appellant has proved the existence of
circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get
benefit of Section 84 IPC. Thus, the crime was not committed as a result
of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of
commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the E
nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus he is entitled
to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the
appellant cannot be sustained. 1619-E-H; 620-AI

Modi 's Medical Jurisprudence, referred to.
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
180 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1998 of the Bombay High

- Court in Crl. A. No. 189/95.

Dr. Shyamla Pappu, (AC), Shakeel Ahmed (AC) and R. Krishnamoorthi,
G
for the Appellant.

Arun, Naresh Kumar and V.N. Raghupathy, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Insanity of the appellant, at the time of
commission of the offence, is the main plea that has been urged before us for
reversing the conviction and sentence in question.

The appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of the offence ...
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (!PC) and sentenced to undergo
B rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against conviction and sentence
having been dismissed by the High Court, this appeal has been filed on grant
of leave. .....

Shortly put, the prosecution case is that the appellant was a Police
Constable. He and Surekha were married in the year 1987. On the date of the
C incident, they were living in police quarters along with their daughter. On the
morning of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrel between husband and wife.

D
While Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her
with grinding stone on her head. The appellant was immediately taken by the
police to the quarter guard. Surekha was taken to the Hospital. She was found
dead. After usual investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of
-
murder of his wife.

On appreciation of evidence, the appellant was found guilty by the
Sessions Court. The evidence was again appreciated by the High Court. The
judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed. We have heard learned counsel
E and have perused the record. In our opinion also, there is enough cogent
evidence to prove that the appellant killed his wife.

Now, the only aspect to be considered is the defence of insanity of the
appellant. That defence has not found favour with the Sessions Court and the
High Court. Dr. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus
F curie has vehemently and ably argued that the appellant was suffering from
insanity at the time of alleged killing of his wife and was, thus, entitled to
benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 !PC. With equal
vehemence and ability, Mr. Arun Pednekar argued that the appellant killed

G
his wife not because of insanity but oo account of extreme anger, which is
different from insanity.
..
Learned counsel for the State, relying upon prosecution witnesses,
contended that the appellant, earlier than the date of incident, used to quarrel
with his wife; drink excessive liquor and used to get excited and this evidence
proves that he, by nature, was a man of extreme anger. During fit of extreme
H anger, he killed his wife.
SH RI KANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE r STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SABHARWAL, J J6 J 5

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish the A
plea of unsoundness of mind. drew our attention to the depositions of Dr,
Arun (DW2) and Dr. Pramod (DW3). The case history and other proved
medical record shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid
·, schizophrenia. He was an indoor patient at a Government hospital from 28th
October, 1993 to 5th November, 1993 for getting treatment for the said B
ailment It further stands established that he was suffering from this disease
at least from 20th April, 1992. He was examined by DW3 on 20th April,
1992 having visited the said doctor with his wife. It also stands established
that 25 times he was taken to hospital for treatment of his mental ailment
from 27th June, 1994 to 5th December. 1994. DW2 deposed that the appellant
was examined by him on 27th October, 1993. He suffered from suspicious C
idea persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and excitement and was diagnosed
as paranoid schizophrenia. The appellant was intermittently becoming
. apprehensive and excited. DW3 deposed that on 20th April 1992, he examined
the appellant brought by his wife. There was history of psychiatric illness in
father at the age of 65 years and in 1989 his father ran away from the house. D
People used to take advantage of his mental condition and cheat him. After
marriage his mental condition worsened. On examination, he was found
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The patient had visual hallucination
(seing images of wife and children). He was brought to hospital 25 times as
above. Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disease. It can recur. When a
person is under ~aranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his activities and E
its consequences.

Was the commission of offence a result of extreme anger or unsoundness
of mind is the question to be decided?

From the aforesaid evidence, it has been proved that there was a family F
history of psychiatric illness. The father of the appellant was suffering from
the ailment at the age of 65 and in 1989 his father ran away from the house.

What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics
and dangers flowing from this ailment. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast G
majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously.
Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of
reference occur, which gradually develops into delusions of persecution.
Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or
noises in the ears, but are afterwards changes into abuses or insults. Delusions
are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some
superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned. some noxious
gases are blown into his room. and people are plotting against him to ruin
him. Disturbances of general sensation gives rise to hallucinations. which are
attributed to the effects of hypnotism. electricity wireless telegraphy or atomic ,·
B agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful
and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are
against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must
be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from
prosecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power
and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing
C manner. The patient usually retains his money and orientation and does not
show signs of insanity, until the conversations is directed to the particular
type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his
behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. [Modi's ...
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edn.)]
D Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known
but hereditary plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness.
On delusion affecting behaviour of patient, he is source of danger to himself
and to others.

E In view of the medical evidence, Mr. Arun Pednekar, learned counsel
appearing for the State, very rightly submitted that the prosecution cannot
question that the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind prior to
and after the date of the commission of the offence. Even otherwise, it stands '
proved from the aforesaid evidence of depositions of the Government Doctors
who, it appears, deposed on the basis of the medical record, that the appellant
F was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia long before the commission of
the offence and the ailment continued thereafter as well. What has, however,
been urged by Mr. Pednekar is that the appellant has failed to prove that he
was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the
offence. The submission is that the fact that the appellant was suffering from
G the ailment before or after the commission of the offence is of no consequence ..
when the appellant has failed to prove he was suffering from that ailment at
the time when the offence was committed.

The burden to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind and as a
resultthereof he was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is
H on the defence. Section 84 !PC is one of the provision in Chapter IV !PC
SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE 1·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SABHARWAL, JJ6] 7

which deals with "general exceptions". That section provides that nothing is A
an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason
of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The burden of proving
the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section
84 lies upon the accused under Section I 05 of the Indian Evidence Act. B
Under the said section, the Court shall presume the absence of such
circumstances. Illustration (a) to Section I 05 is as follows :

"(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, he did not know the nature of the act.

The burden of proof is on A."
c
The question whether the appellant has proved the existence of
circumstances bringing his case within the purview of Section 84 will have
to be examined from the totality of circumstances. The unsoundness of mind
as a result whereof one is incapable of knowing consequences is a state of D
mind of a person which, ordinarily can be inferred from the circumstances.
If, however, an act is committed out of extreme anger and not as a result of
unsoundness of mind, the accused would not be entitled to the benefit of
exception as contained in Section 84 !PC. In fact, that is the contention of the
learned counsel for the State. It was contended that the prosecution evidence
has established that the appellant by nature was an angry person and under E
the fit of extreme anger, he committed the murder of his wife as there was
fight between them that morning and there is nothing to show that at the
relevant time the appellant was under an attack of paranoid schizophrenia.

At this stage, it is necessary to notice the nature of the burden that is
.required to be discharged by the accused to get benefit of Section 84 !PC. In
F
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, [ 1964] 7 SCR 361 this
Court has held that even ifthe accused was not able to establish conclusively
that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed
before the Court may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as
regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of G
the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused
on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was
not discharged. The burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no
higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings which, in other words,
means preponderance of probabilities. This Court held that :
H
618 SUPREME COUkT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A "The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity
may be stated in the following propositions : (I) The prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the
requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the
prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable
B presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime,
in the sense laid down by s.84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may
rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence - oral, documentary
or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that
rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able
to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the
C offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the
prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards
one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the
accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on
the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was
not discharged."
D
In support of the contention that the crucial point of time for ascertaining
the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section
84 IPC is the time when the offence is committed, the learned counsel relied
upon the following passage from the aforenoticed case :

E "When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider
whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature
of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to
law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the
F accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the
accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit
of s.84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the
circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime."

Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission
G of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception.

We have already noticed earlier that unsoundness of mind preceding
occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. It has rightly not
been questioned by learned counsel for the State. Regarding the state of mind
of the accused at the time of commission of offence, in our opinion, ordinarily
H that would be an aspect to be inferred from the circumstances. Further. as
SHRIKANT ANANDRAO Bl-IOSALE v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SABHARWAL. J.] 619
earlier noticed, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused is no higher A
than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these:

I. The appellant has a family history his father was suffering from
psychiatric illness. B
2. Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part.
'
J. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of \TI ind since 1992-
Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
4. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to
5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment
c
25 times to hospital.
5. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.
6. The weak motive of killing of wife - being that she was opposing
the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable. D
7. Killing in day light - no attempt to hide or run away.

Mr. Arun Pednekar relies upon Shera/Ii Wali Mohammed v. The State
of Maharashtra, (1973] 4 SCC 79 to contend that mere fact that the appellant
did not make any attempt to run away or that he committed the crime in day E
light and did not try to hide it or that motive to kill his wife was very weak,
would not indicate that at the time of commission of the act the appellant was
suffering from unsoundness of mind or he did not have requisite mens rea for
the commission of the offence. It is correct that these facts itself would not
indicate insanity. In the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid
facts but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence F
on record to prove that the appellant was suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia. The unsoundness of mind before and after incident is a relevant
fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably
drawn that the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. He was
under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been G
placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia a:tack. Having regard to the
nature of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has
proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section I 05 of the
Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 !PC. We are unable to hold
that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a
reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the appellant H
]
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of
mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 !PC. Hence, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.

Before parting, we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for
the able assistance rendered by Dr. Shyamla Pappu appearing as amicus curie
B for the appellant.

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
High Court and ~llow the appeal. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith,
if not required in any other case.

C S.K.S. Appeal allowed.