Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The evidence of DWs 2 and 4 would show that the appellant was subjected to abuse of cannabis, alcohol, hans and panparag. The appellant can no way avoid that evidence of DWs 2 and 4. We find little reason to reject that evidence. In the light of the evidence of DWs 2 and 4 the plea of insanity is devoid of merit. But he was under the influence of drugs. Sometimes, he may be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. That is not because of the unsoundness of the mind but because of intoxication. Such a case would come only under Section 85 and not under Section 84 IPC. In the light of the evidence of Dws 2 and 4, we find that the appellant was not a person of unsound mind. He was addicted to various drugs and under intoxication. To sustain, a defence under Section 85 IPC, it is for the accused to establish that the intoxication was caused against his will. For a correct appraisal, we find it appropriate to refer Section 85 IPC which reads as follows:

"85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing  the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will." (emphasis supplied) Section 85 IPC is crystal clear that defence under this Section could be availed only on establishment that the intoxication was without the knowledge or against the will of the wrong doer. The appellant has no case that he was subjected to intoxication against his will or knowledge. There is not even a suggestion to the effect. Therefore, we are persuaded to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant himself was subjected to intoxication by drugs. In such circumstance, the appellant is not entitled to escape the guilt alleged on plea of insanity or incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong r contrary to law. Adv. Smt. Sathyasree Priya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, canvassed our attention to the decision reported in Santhi Devi v. State [AIR 1968 Delhi 177] and Shrikant Anandarao Bhosale v. State of Maharahtra [AIR 2002 SC 3399] in support of the plea of insanity. We have gone through the decisions referred and find that the decisions  referred therein are with respect to entirely different set of facts and it has no application to the case on hand.

24. In the above circumstance, we find that the defence of insanity is not available to the appellant. Even if he was of unsound mind that was because of drug intoxication. As it was  self addicted, the appellant is not entitled to defence u/s.85 IPC also. For the reasons discussed earlier, we find that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the offences alleged. The appellant assaulted Santha and Damodaran after having criminally trespassed into their courtyard. The nature of injuries sustained to Damodaran and Santha revealed by the evidene of PW9 would show that the injuries were fatal. Nature and location of the injury speak volumes about the intention to cause death. PW6 was inflicted simple hurt while she attempting to intervene the appellant assaulting Damodaran. Damodaran and Santha were assaulted to death. Offences under Sections 447, 323 and 302 are established. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. We confirm the conviction.