Holding

The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC and the conviction under Section 302 IPC stands.

Summary

The appellant, Sidhapal Kamala Yadav, a prisoner, was convicted of murdering co‑prisoner Dilip Sitaram Chaudhary in a hospital ward. He pleaded the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, claiming he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. Two psychiatrists who examined him testified that he was not mentally ill at the relevant time. The trial court and the High Court rejected the insanity defence and upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 84, the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, and the meaning of "unsoundness of mind", concluding that the psychiatric evidence negated the defence. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 and affirmed the conviction.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 84 IPC as a defence of insanity in the present facts
The burden of proof for establishing insanity under Section 105 of the Evidence Act
The proper interpretation of "unsoundness of mind" and its legal relevance

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

insanity defenceSection 84 IPCburden of proofmental illnessmurderevidence actpsychiatric testimony

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 320 (-

A SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV f'~
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1602 of 2008)
OCTOBER 13, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.] ~~ 1

Penal Code, 1860: ~

c ss. 84 and 302 - Murder - Plea of insanity by the ac-
cused - Psychiatrists attending upon the accused were of the
opinion that accused was not mentally ill at the relevant time
- Conviction by courts below- On appeal, held: In the facts of
the case, accused not entitled to benefit of s. 84 - Conviction
D justified - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105.
s. 84 - Applicability of - Discussed. ' ;,.....
~
)
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105 - Burden of proof- To prove
insanity by the accused - Held: Burden of proof rests on an
,
E accused to prove his insanity. r

Words and Phrases - 'Insanity' and 'unsoundness of
mind' - Meaning of in the context of s. 84 /PC.
,...
1..-

Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having
F caused death of one person. The prosecution cas~ was
'!
that the accused who was a prisoner was admitted for \
treatment with the complaint that he was murmuring to
himself, like a lunatic. He was lodged in the ward where
another prisoner (deceased) was already lodged for treat-
G
ment. PWs. 2 and 4 alongwith three others were the guards
on duty. At the alleged time of occurrence, when there was
no electric supply, on the call of one of the guards that )..._, /o

noise was heard from the prisoners' ward, all the guards
went in the ward. PW2 was grabbed by the appellant. How-
H 320
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 321
MAHARASHTRA

) ever, he was controlled by guard party. When the electric- A
ity resumed, it was noticed that the deceased was hang-
ing from the bed, and the person caught by the guard
party was the appellant-accused.
During trial, the accused took defence of his mental
illness. PWs 9 and 10, the Psychiatrists who attended 8
• _ · upon the accused stated that the accused was not men-
tally ill at the relevant time. Trial court discarding the de-
fence u/s. 84 IPC, convicted the accused u/s. 302 !PC.The
High Court confirmed the order of trial court. There-against
the appeal was filed before Supreme Court. C
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence of PWs 9 and 10, the two psy-
chiatrists who attended upon the accused-appellant and the
opinion expressed by them that the accused was not men- D
tally ill at the relevant time, clearly goes to show that the
appellant's plea relating to unsoundness of mind has no
substance. Accordingly, the trial Court and the High Court
have rightly held that Section 84 IPC has no application to
the facts of the case. [Paras 14 and 17] [332-E 333-8] E
2.1 Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated
from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsound-
ness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either
t\ incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that
--r. he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. [Para F
8] [329-8]
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 - re-
lied on.
2.2 In dealing with cases involving a defence of in- G
- ;'- sanity, 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 in-
sanity is sought to be proved in respect of a person, who
for all intents and purposes, appears sane. In all cases, H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

A where previous insanity is proved or admitted, certain con- r ;;..
siderations have to be borne in mind. [Para 7] [328-E-F]
2.3 Section 84 itself provides that the benefit is avail-
able only after it is proved that at the time of committing
the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect
B 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
c be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes
place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circum-
stances 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
D unsoundness of mind, which naturally impairs the cogni-
tive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemp- -~
tion from criminal responsibility. [Para 11] [330-F-G]
'History of the Criminal Law of England, by Stephen Vo.
II, page 166 - referred to.
E
2.4 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, he must always be
F presumed to intend the consequence of the action he r
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.
[Para 11] [331-A-B] [331-A-B]

..
G Sherall Walli Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra 1972
Cr.LJ 1523 (SC) - relied on.
~ "
2.5 Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, ir-
resistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psycho-
path affords no protection under Section 84. The stan-
H
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 323
MAHARASHTRA

- -; dard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary A
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 B
and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts,
___; in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insan-
ity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epi-
leptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour,
or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to c
attract the application of this Section. [Paras 11 and 12]
[331-D] (332-A-C]
M. Naughton's case (1843) A St.Tr. (NS) 847 - referred to.
'
3.1 The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove

-
-'"'_)
his insanity, which arises by virtue of Section 105 of Evi-
dence Act, 1872 and is not so onerous as that upon the
prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act
D

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. [Para 7] [328-C-D] E

3.2 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 exami- F
-~,_
nation and place that evidence before the Court and if this
is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecu-
tion case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the
accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by pro-
ducing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly
G

-- _J.
prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immedi-
ately 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 prosecu-
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A tion has not to establish these facts. [Para 8] [329-0-F]
4. 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
8 of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infir-
mity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idi-
ots who cannot count twenty, or tell the days of the week,
or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like, A
person made non compos mentis by illness is excused in
C criminal cases from such acts as are-committed while
under the influence of his disorder. A lunatic is one who
is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods and
vicissitudes, having intervals of reason. Madness is per-
manent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired
D insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity. [Para 9] [329-G-H
330-A-C]
1 Hale PC 30 - referred to.
Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice,
E 35th Edn. pp. 31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemean-
ors, 12th Edn. Vol. I, pp. 103 and 105; 1 Ha la's Pleas of the
Grown 34 - referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE

F AIR 1964 SC 1563 Relied on Para 7 Y'
-1-
1 Hale PC 30 Referred to Para 9
(1843) 4 St.Tr. (NS) 847 Referred to Para 11
1972 Cr.LJ 1523 (SC) Relied on Para 11
G
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal t-

No. 1602 of 2008 J.-...

From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad
H in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 2004
. l
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA

M. Qamaruddin andAmbarQamaruddin fortheAppellant.
Gopal Balwant Sathe, Gautam Godara, Anjani Kr. Mishra
325

A

and R.K. Adsure for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. B

~ --! 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismiss-
ing the appeal filed by the appellant who was found guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, c
1860 (in short 'IPC') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon,
in Sessions Case No.140 of 2002 and was sentenced to un-
dergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine with default stipu-
lation.
3. The prosecution case unfolded through depositions of D
) ASI Ukhadu Tadvi (PW-2), hospital nurse Smt. Suman Shave
(PW-3) and guard Bhagwat Sutar (PW-4), also complaint (Ex-
hibit 18) that was filed by ASI Tadvi, on behalf of the State. The
incident in question took place on the night between 18th and
19th July, 2002. To be precise, it took place at about 4.00 a.m. E
of 19.7.2002, at Ward No.14 of Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, where
the appellant and the victim Dilip Sitaram Chaudhary (hereinaf-
ter referred to as 'deceased') were lodged.

The complainant ASI Tadvi was posted on guard duty at
"' -1 the said prisoners' cell in the Civil Hospital. There were other F
four policemen also, along with him, namely, Police Constables
Ibrahim, Bhagwat, Gokul and Police· Naik Sattar. Victim Dilip
was admitted for treatment since 14.7.2002. On 18.7.2002, the
appellant was admitted for treatment with the complaint that he
was murmuring to himself, like a lunatic. Both, the victim and G
~
_,,,;. the appellant, were lodged in Ward No.14 in a common room.
ASI and 4 plicemen were the party on guard, posted.at the said
ward.
On the fateful night, there was no electricity supply. At about
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 3.30 a.m. on 19.7.2002, constable Gokul was on duty. Since it r >-
...__

was raining, policemen occupied a location at the ground floor
of the hospital. Gokul alone was in the guardroom, by the side
of the prisoners ward.
At about 4.00 a.m. Police Constable Gokul, on duty,
B shouted, "Dada run, there is a noise of violence in the prison-
ers' room".
{-- ~
Consequently, entire guard party rushed to the Wardroom
and it was opened. As ASI Tadvi entered the room, he was
c grabbed by the appellant. However, all policemen managed to
control the appellant and again put him on the bed, where he
was asked to sleep on the night with handcuff. It was noticed at
that time that, the appellant had freed himself from the handcuff.
It was noticed that the co-prisoner was not on the bed, but was
hanging from the cot, his leg still was locked to the bed with the
D
fetter. Iron stand, used for hanging a saline bottle, was lying by
his side. It was also noticed that Dilip, the deceased who was
hanging by the side of the cot, had' suffered head injury. The
prisoner, who was caught by the guard and who had escaped
-,,
from the handcuff, was the appellant. In the meanwhile, electric-
E ity supply was resumed by the hospital generator. Nurse Suman
(PW-:3) had arrived there, who summoned Resident Medical
Officer (in short 'RMO'). The RMO and other doctors then car-
ried the victim Dilip on a stretcher to the room of Casualty Medical
Officer (CMO) Dr. Survade, who, after sometime, informed that
F the victim had expired. Intimation to that effect was sent to Zilla /'
:y--
Peth Police· Station.
A detailed complaint, narrating these events, was lodged
by ASI Tadvi to the said Police Station, which was registered as
First Information Report at 08.30 hours and after investigation
G
and committal of the case, trial, which culminated into impugned
. judgment before the High Court, was held. "- ..
As already described hereinabove, ASI Tadvi (PW-2), so
also nurse Suman (PW-3) and Police Constable Bhagwat (PW-
H 4), are the persons, who reached the location iri response to
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 327
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"" l call by guard on duty, Police Constable Gokul. Other set of im-
portant witnesses is of four doctors. Dr. Surwade (PW-5), was
A

the CMO, who had reached the location upon call by nurse
Suman. Dr. Bhalchandra (PW-8) had performed autopsy. He
has recorded an opinion that, the death was result of head in-
jury sustained with multiple rib fracture, injuries suffered were 8
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result into death
~ ...._)
and the saline stand could be the possible weapon for inflicting
the injuries. Dr. Satish Patil (PW-9) and Dr. Subhash Badgujar
(PW-10) are the two psychiatrists, then attached to civil hospi-
tal and the appellant was under their observation, at the mate- c
rial time. The prosecution and the trial Court have laid heavy
emphasis on their evidence, in order to counter the defence of
mental illness, raised by the accused.
Rajendra (PW-1 ), is the panch witness to inquest
panchnama (Exh.16), spot panchnama (Exh. 26) was drawn in D
)
presence of panch witness Prabhakar. Blood stained pant of the
accused was also seized under panchnama (Exh. 27), in his pres-
ence. Third panch witness Vilas (PW-7) was present when ar-
rest of the accused was effected, vide Exhibit 30 and also when
'.
clothes of the deceased were seized under Exhibit 29. E
4. The trial Court, as noted above, discarded the defence
of mental illness as raised by the accused and found him guilty.
The accused reiterated its stand of general exception under
Section 84 of the IPC before the High Court. It was submitted
.....
that at the time of occurrence by reason of unsoundness of mind F
i
the appellant was incapable to knowing the nature of the act
and was, therefore, entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC.
The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and dis-
missed the appeal.
G
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
,.,.,
~" nature of the acts clearly shows that the appellant was of un-
soundness mind and did not know the consequence of the act
and, therefore, ought to have been given protection under Sec-
tion 84 IPC.
H
..
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
f p

supported the judgment of the High Court.
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 the IPC. Courts have, however,
B mainly treated this expression as equivalentto insanity. But the
term "insanity" itself has no precise definition. ltis a term used ~·~
to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So,. every per-
son, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from
criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between le- ~
c gal insanity and medical insanity. A Court is concerned with le- j

gal 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (in short the
'Evidence Act') and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecu-
D tion 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 v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563). In dealing
with cases involving a defence of insanity, distinction must be :
E 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
;,
F considerations have to be borne in mind. Mayne summarises
them as follows: y-·
"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
G offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts
to avoid detections whether, after his arrest, he offered ,i..._ ..:;
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
H have committed the act if there had been a policeman at
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 329
MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

his elbow ? It is to be remembered that these tests are A
<f')
) 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 insanity".
8. Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from Ii-
ability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 ac-
cused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at .the time or
immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condi- F
'i..
tion and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to
- -/
know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly, every per-
son 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 G
) 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 in-
tervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count twenty, H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

.,.J
A or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or f ..._

mothers, or the like, (See Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, Evi-
dence and Practice; 35th Edn. pp.31-32; Russell 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
B 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 only at certain ~

~ .,
periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason, (See
Russell, 12 Edn. Vol. 1, p. 103; Hale PC 31). Madness is per-
"
c manent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired in-
sanity, and idiocy as natural insanity.

10. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of crimi-
nal law, i.e., actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea" (an act
does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention). In
D order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur;
~ut in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on
them as they have no free will (furios is nu/la 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
E accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from dis-
ease 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 sec-
F tion should be given or not, is the material time when the of- j

fence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant cir- \- -
cumstances are to be taken into consideration, it w.ould be dan-
gerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments de-
rived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsound- _
G ness 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 En-
gland,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
H him looking for it when he woke up, would obviously be a case
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 331
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~,1.

l where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of knowing A
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 suffi-
ciently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be
presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. B
Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it
may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insan-
~ --'
ity, 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 proved why the
accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he made c
no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would

. not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have neces-
sary mens rea for the offence. Mere abnormality of mind or par-
tial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a
psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law D
contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated
J Naughton rules of 19th Century England. The provisions of Sec-
tion 84 are in substance the same as that laid down in the an-
swers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House
• of Lords, in M Naughton's case (1843) 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847.
E
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 thereof is
"-- often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing F
-i 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 facul-
ties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge
the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean com- G
plete or prefect restoration of the mental faculties to their origi-
-1 ../ nal condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person con-
cerned 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.
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

·1
,x,
A 12. The standard to be applied is whether according to
the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was
f ' I

'I-
right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is concehed, odd
irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical
and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his
B 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 L-
,_~

I ~
subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal ~-·J

in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be -.
sufficient to attract the application of this section. "
c
13. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as follows:
"84. Act of a person of unsound mind - Nothing is an 11
offence which is done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsound.ness of mind, is incapable
D
of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what
is either wrong or contrary to law."
14. The evidence of doctors who attended the accused-
appellant and the opinion expressed by them clearly goes to
E show that the appellant's plea relating to unsoundness of mind •
have no substance. Dr. Satish (PW.9) was present when the
appellant was admitted to the Civil Hospital on. 18. 7 .2000 at
about 11.45 a.m. He has stated as follows:
"I e~amined the patient, I did not find any obvious psychiatric
F illness. He was still kept under observation. Subsequently, ,,
Dr. Badgujar (PW.10) medically treated patient Sidhapal." \-
15. Similarly, Dr. Subhash Badgujar (PW.10) who also
- treated the appellant form 18. 7 .2002 i.e. the date of admission
till 25.7.2002 the date of discharge has stated as follows:
G
"The said patient Sidhpal Yadav was not mentally ill person -~

from 18.7.2002 to 25.7.2002." ~ "t'--

16. According to PW.10 when he examined the appellant I-
on 18.7.2002 in the evening he was calm and quiet. He was
H
SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF 333
MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

neither angry nor was he shouting. This according to the doctor A
indicated that the appellant was normal. In the medical records
it has been clearly stated that he was not cooperative and it
was difficult to establish any rapport with him.

-
= !'
17. Accordingly, the trial Court and the High Court have
rightly held that Section 84 IPC has no application to the facts
of the present case.
18. The appeal is sans merit and is dismissed.
8

K.K.T. Appeal disposed.

)