JUDGEMENT
Ayyangar, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the dismissal of an appeal preferred by it to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) which declined to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge holding the respondent not guilty of an offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The ground of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, which was concurred in by the High Court was that the respondent was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the crime and so was entitled to an acquittal under S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)There is very little dispute about the facts or even about the construction of S. 84 of the Code because both the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judges of the High Court on appeal have held that the crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind, as defined in that section, has to be established is when the act was committed. It is the application of this principle to the facts established by the evidence that is the ground of complaint by the appellant-State before us.
(3.)Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which was invoked by the respondent successfully in the Courts below runs in these terms:
"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."
It is not in dispute that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by this section lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption (vide S. 105, Indian Evidence Act, Illustration (a) ).
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.