Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The same is substantially the principle underlying the Law in India on the subject as embodied in Section 84 of the I.P.C. and Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to illustration (a) of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act the onus of establishing the plea under Section 84 I.P.C. rests on the accused. The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case under Section 84 I.P.C. is thrown on the accused and Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act directs that "the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances". In order that Section 84 I.P.C. may come into play it is to be established that the accused is of unsound mind and his cognitive faculties are so impaired that he did not know the nature of the act done by him or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. In this connection it will be pertinent to consider the several derisions of the Supreme Court on this point. In the case of State of Madhyn Pradesh v, Ahamadullah- , it has been observed that "the crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind as defined in Section 84 I.P.C. has to be established is when the act was committed ...The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by Section 84 I.P.C, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption". This was also a case of epileptic insanity. In the case of Dhyabhai Chhaganbhal Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, , the Supreme Court has again observed that "it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299, of the Penal Code. But under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception lies on the accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of 'shall presume' in Section 4 thereof, the Court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist". It has again been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhikari V. State of Uttar Pradesh, , that "Section 84 I.P.C. can be invoked by the accused for nullifying the evidence produced by the prosecution. This he can do by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law ...Every person is presumed to know the natural consequence of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. It is for this reason that Section 105 of the Evidence Act placed upon the accused person the burden of proving the exception relied upon by him."

12. It has been contended in this connection by the defence that the prosecution could not really prove any motive as to why the said offence was committed by the accused-appellant and as such it appears prima facie that the accused, unless he was of an unsound mind, could not back down his own child and attempt to kill his wife and the other son. We must hold, however, that mere lack of proof by prosecution of a motive for offence cannot be substitute for positive proof required of the defence. In this connection we refer to the case of Attorney General for the State of South Australia v. John Brown reported in 1960 A.C. 432, at p. 442 of the said report, certain passages in the summing up of Mr. Justice Abbot, the trial Judge, have been given as follows: "Gentlemen, throughout the centuries of civilisation crimes have repeatedly been committed without any apparent or discoverable motive. Theft is one of the reasons why, in our childhood, we were taught never to put temptation in anybody's way and what would be temptation for another man, might be no temptation whatsoever to us. You may, perhaps, remember the words of Shakespeare--"How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done". Lord Tucker in delivering the opinion of the Priviy Council refused to accept the presumption of law indicated in the High Court's judgment that uncontrollable impulse is a symptom of insanity and observed as follows: "But where the whole case for the defence is based upon the accused having a particular form of mental disease such as schizophrenia, the nature and symptoms of which are known to psychiatrists but knowledge of which cannot be attributed to a jury, the law will not step in to instruct a jury in the absence of medical evidence as to the 'true operation of uncontrollable impulse as a possible symptom of insanity of a required kind and degree'." We hold therefore, that the standard of proof required by the law of India under Section 84 I.P.C. read along with the provisions of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, is not any the less, and that a mere lack of proof by the prosecution of a motive for the offence cannot be a substitute for the positive proof required of the defence. In the present case the evidence does not fulfill the onus which was on the accused to establish insanity. We further refer to the recent case of Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya v. State of Kerala AIR 1967 Ker 92, wherein Mr. Justice Anna Chandy and Mr. Justice M. Madhavan Nair, have held that to earn exemption under Section 84 I.P.C. defence has to prove insanity of accused at the time of the offending act and that fear complex, excitement or irresistible impulse with loss of self-control, even if proved in a case, affords no defence to a crime under the Indian Law. They have further held that the burden of proving existence of circumstances bringing case under Section 84 I.P.C. lies on the accused and the court must presume absence of such circumstances.

13. To put it in a short compass, the essential ingredients of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, are in the first place with the accused. Before he can be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. he must establish that at the time of committing the act, he was Non Compos Mentis--not of a sound mind. If he does not succeed in this preliminary issue, the plea must fail. In the second place, even if, the accused was of unsound mind he must prove that the said unsoundness of mind was of a degree and nature to fulfil one of the tests as laid down in the said section, namely, that by reason of such unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

14, Let us now test the evidence on the point in the light of the principles mentioned by us above. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence and proceeded:)

15. In view of the said evidence, although in the first blush it may appear that a father would not kill his own daughter and injure his wife and a son until he went berserk, but nonetheless first impressions alone will not do. In order to get the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code the essential ingredients thereof must be satisfied and having traversed the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that it is one of those cases which come clearly within the ambit of Section 84 I.P.C. The evidence on record, fails not only to establish the most material point that the accused was insane or was of unsound mind at the time of committing the offence but, on the other hand, the body of evidence adduced in this behalf by the prosecution rules it out. At best it establishes that the accused-appellant is a diseased person and undergoes epileptic fits. But it does not appear on the evidence on record that he had any such fit on that day immediately before or after the occurrence or during the period when he was absent from the place of occurrence and before his arrest in the evening on the date in question. It is also shrouded in darkness. Therefore although one may have some sympathies for the accused, the same cannot however be sustained upon ultimate analysis. It is said that law is good but justice is better. But it is also true that justice must be in accordance with law. Therefore although the incident may after all have been due to an outburst of the accumulated frustration of an unfortunate person, who was dogged by ill-luck at every step, we are constrained to hold that he is not entitled to the protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.