Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court:-

(i) Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 7 SCC 748]. Paragraphs 7, 10 and 11 are relevant, which reads thus:-

"7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish the plea of unsoundness of mind, drew our attention to the depositions of Dr Arun (DW 2) and Dr Pramod (DW 3). 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 28-10-1993 to 5-11-1993 for getting treatment for the said ailment. It further stands established that he was suffering from this disease at least from 20-4-1992. He was examined by DW 3 on 20-4-1992 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 27-6-1994 to 5-12- 1994. DW 2 deposed that the appellant was examined by him on 27-10-1993. He suffered from suspicious ideas, persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and excitement and was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic. The appellant was intermittently becoming apprehensive and excited. DW 3 deposed that on 20-4-1992, he examined the appellant brought by his wife. There was a history of psychiatric illness in his father at the age of 65 years and in 1989 his father ran away from the house. 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 hallucinations (seeing 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 paranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his activities and its consequences".

"10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment? Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast 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 develop into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but afterwards change into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead 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 give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic 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 persecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his memory and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation 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.)

23. In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale's case (supra), the Apex Court had made a detailed analysis on paranoid schizophrenia. It is also held that heredity plays a vital part in the cause of schizophrenia. However, in order to get the benefit of Exception in terms of S.84 of I.P.C., it is on the accused to prove that he was of unsound mind and as a result thereof, he was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts. After referring to an earlier judgment in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563), the Apex Court held that the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution should 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 such a 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. Still further, it was held that when a plea of legal insanity is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence, 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. In Shera Ram's case (supra), while considering the nature of evidence to be adduced in a case where the defence raises an exception u/s 84 of I.P.C., the Apex Court was considering a case of epileptic psychosis. In Devidas Loka Rathod's case (supra), Apex Court still further held that if the previous history of the insanity of the appellant was revealed, it was the duty of the investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the Court. If that is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Reference was also made to the judgment in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 8 SCC 66]. It was further held that, if a reasonable doubt is created with reference to the mental state of the accused at the time of commission of the assault on a preponderance of probability, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt explaining why the plea of unsoundness of mind taken by the accused was untenable.