What the Supreme Court ruled on Burden of Proof on accused for Insanity under IPC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court today held that an accused when taking the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has to only establish defence on the preponderance of probability. The burden of proof on the accused in such a case is not as stringent as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubts..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha in a murder case..Factual background.The case was an appeal filed by Devidas Loka Rathod against a decision of the Bombay High Court which had rejected his defence of unsound mind and convicted him under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code..In the morning of September 26, 2006, the appellant suddenly picked up a sickle from the shop floor of the ironsmith and attempted to assault Gulab Pawar but which injured Santosh Jadhav on the jaw and cheek and gave a further blow on his shoulder..The same day, he later assaulted Ulhas Rathor on his back and neck and rained blows on the back and stomach of the deceased Harish Chandra Chauhan, when the latter tried to intervene. The appellant then tried to flee, throwing the sickle en-route, when he was apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police..The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejected the defence plea for unsoundness of mind, citing insufficient evidence relying on the evidence of Dr. Sagar Srikant Chiddalwar that the appellant was not mentally sick..The subsequent conduct of the appellant while in custody and his demeanour during the trial were further relied upon to conclude that the appellant was conscious of his wrongful acts which were deliberate in nature, evident from the repeated assaults and running away from the place of occurrence after throwing the sickle. The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction leading to the appeal in Supreme Court..Submissions by parties.Advocate Aparna Jha appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that in absence of any mensrea, a conviction under Section 302 IPC was unsustainable, relying upon Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [1964 (7) SCR 361]. It was contended that the evidence with regard to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant was not properly appreciated and wrongly rejected as insufficient..It was the appellant’s argument that he belonged to a very poor family and could not be expected to keep his medical records and prescriptions meticulously. The defence witnesses had deposed that the appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Kelkar at Akola. There existed sufficient evidence for a plausible defence for unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 105 of the Evidence Act on a preponderance of the probability..The prosecution failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal, for which reliance was placed on Elavarasan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, [2011 (7) SCC 110]. The conviction was, therefore, unjustified and the appellant was entitled to acquittal, Jha submitted..Counsel for the State, Katneshwarkar submitted that the appellant had failed to prima facie establish a case for unsoundness of mind on probability. The trial judge had taken adequate precautions in calling for medical reports from time to time and satisfying himself with regard to the ability of the appellant to defend himself..The conduct of the appellant in making repeated assaults, running away from the place of occurrence, throwing the sickle on the way, were all sufficient to establish the commission of the offence knowingly by him, incompatible with the defence of unsoundness of mind, it was argued..Judgment.The Supreme Court examined the original records of the trial court in order to satisfy itself that there had been a proper and complete appreciation of all evidence..The Court went on to note that though the appellant was caught immediately after he made the assault and was brought to the police station and an FIR registered, he was taken into custody only two days later because he was not keeping well and had to be admitted to a hospital. The information of his arrest was not given to his sister or mother, but only to his friend Nagorao Baghe, who was not examined..The Court observed that in view of the previous history of insanity of the appellant as revealed, it was the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the court and if this was not done, it created a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused..Failure to do the same, the court stated.“persuades us to believe that the prosecution has deliberately withheld relevant evidence with regard to the nature of the appellant’s mental illness, his mental condition at the time of assault, requiring hospitalization immediately after the assault and hindering his arrest all of which necessarily casts a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence raising more than reasonable doubts about the mental condition of the appellant.”.Both the trial court and the High Court completely failed to consider and discuss this very important lacuna in the prosecution case, the Court held..The Court then proceeded to discuss the aspect relating to burden of proof on accused to prove insanity..The onus on the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to prove insanity is not as stringent as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused has only to establish his defence on a preponderance of probability, the Court held. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgments in Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand [(2011) 11 SCC 495] and State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram [(2012) 1 SCC 602]..Placing reliance on Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190], the Court held that if from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt..The Court then went on to examine the sufficiency of the medical and other evidence in detail before concluding that the appellant has been able to create sufficient doubt that he is entitled to the benefit of the exception under section 84 of the IPC because of the preponderance of his medical condition..He was, therefore, acquitted..Read the judgment below.