Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 84 ipc in Vidhya Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 January, 2004Matching Fragments
23. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just stated above, the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 84 1PC or not.
24. For convenience, Section 84 IPC is reproduced here:-
"Section 84. Act of a person of unsound mind.-Nothing is 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."
25. Before proceeding further, some thing should be said about the fundamental principle of criminal law.
27. To establish that an act done cannot be said to be an offence as covered by Section 84 IPC, the following elements must be present:-
(i) the accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the act; and
(ii) by reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
28. Apart from this, there are certain principles to be borne in mind before applying Section 84 IPC and they are as follows:-
(iv) That the facts just narrated above clearly disclosed that the accused appellant was suffering from the mental disease "schizophrenia" and that state existed before and after the occurrence and therefore, in these circumstances, it can easily be concluded that the defence of insanity stands proved.
44. Thus, having regard to the nature of burden on the accused appellant, we are of the view that the accused 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. Apart from this, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and thus, she is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.
In coming to the above conclusion, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (3), may be referred to where the appellant of that case was also suffering from the same disease "schizophrenia" and the facts of that case and the present case are similar to some extent and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the accused appellant of that case was entitled to benefit under Section 84 IPC.
45. For the reasons stated above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara are liable to be set aside and the accused appellant is entitled to acquittal after giving benefit of Section 84 IPC.