Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
1. Insanity of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, isthe main plea that has been urged before us for reversing the convictionand sentence in question.
2. The appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of theoffence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against convictionand sentence having been dismissed by the High Court, this appeal hasbeen filed on grant of leave.
3. Shortly put, the prosecution case is that the appellant was a PoliceConstable. He and Surekha was married in the year 1987. On the dateof the incident, they were living in police quarters along with theirdaughter. On the morning of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrelbetween husband and wife. While Surekha was washing clothes in thebathroom, the appellant hit her with grinding stone on her head. Theappellant was immediately taken by the police to the quarter guard.Surekha was taken to the Hospital. She was found dead. After usualinvestigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of murder of hiswife.
4. On appreciation of evidence, the appellant was found guilty by theSessions Court. The evidence was again appreciated by the High Court.The judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed. We have heardlearned counsel and have perused the record. In our opinion also, thereis enough cogent evidence to prove that the appellant killed his wife.
5. Now, the only aspect to be considered is the defence of insanity ofthe appellant. That defence has not found favour with the Sessions Courtand the High Court. Dr. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counselappearing as amicus curie has vehemently and ably argued that theappellant was suffering from insanity at the time of alleged killing of hiswife and was, thus, entitled to benefit of general exception contained inSection 34 IPC. With equal vehemence and ability, Mr. Arun Pednekarargued that the appellant killed his wife not because of insanity but onaccount of extreme anger, which is different from insanity.
6. Learned counsel for the State, relying upon prosecution witnesses,contended that the appellant, earlier than the date of incident, used toquarrel with his wife; drink excessive liquor and used to get excited andthis evidence proves that he, by nature, was a man of extreme anger.During fit of extreme anger, he killed his wife.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish theplea of unsoundness of mind, drew our attention to the depositions of Dr.Arun (DW2) and Dr. Pramod (DW3). The case history and other provedmedical record shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoidschizophrenia. He was an indoor patient at a Government hospital from28 th October, 1993 to 5th November, 1993 for getting treatment for the saidailment. It further stands established that he was suffering from thisdisease at least from 20th April, 1992. He was examined by DW3 on 20th April, 1992 having visited the said doctor with his wife. It also standsestablished that 25 times he was taken to hospital for treatment of hismental ailment from 27th June, 1994 to 5th December, 1994. DW2deposed that the appellant was examined by him on 27 th October, 1993.He suffered from suspicious idea persecutory delusions, loss of sleep andexcitement and was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. The appellantwas intermittently becoming apprehensive and excited. DW3 deposedthat on 20th April, 1992, he examined the appellant brought by his wife.There was history of psychiatric illness in father at the age of 65 years andin 1989 his father ran away from the house. People used to takeadvantage of his mental condition and cheat him. After marriage hismental condition worsened. On examination, he was found suffering fromparanoid schizophrenia. The patient had visual hallucination (seeingimages of wife and children). He was brought to hospital 25 times asabove. Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disease. It can recur. Whena person is under paranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his activitiesand its consequences.
8. Was the commission of offence a result of extreme anger orunsoundness of mind is the question to be decided?
9. From the aforesaid evidence, it was been proved that there was afamily history of psychiatric illness. The father of the appellant wassuffering from the ailment at the age of 65 and in 1989 his father ran awayfrom the house.
10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are itscharacteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment. Paranoidschizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, stars in the fourth decadeand develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptomof the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually developsinto delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in thebeginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but are afterwardschanges into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, butgradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believethat he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhumanagency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gasesare blown into his room, and people are plotting against him to ruin him.Disturbances of general sensation gives rise to hallucinations, which areattributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity wireless telegraphy oratomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing tothese painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since somany people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes tobelieve that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusionsthus may change from prosecutor to the grandiose type. He entertainsdelusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himselfin a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains hismoney and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until theconversations is directed to the particular type of delusion from which heis suffering. When delusions affect his behavior, he is often a source ofdanger to himself and to others. [Modi's Medical Jurisprudence andToxicology (22nd Edn.)]
11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still notknown but hereditary plays a part. The irritation and excitement areeffects of illness. On delusion affecting behavior of patient, he is sourceof danger to himself and to others.
12. In view of the medical evidence, Mr. Arun, Pednekar, learnedcounsel appearing for the State, very rightly submitted that theprosecution cannot question that the appellant was suffering fromunsoundness of mind prior to and after the date of the commission of theoffence. Even otherwise, it stands proved from the aforesaid evidence ofdepositions of the Government Doctors who, it appears, deposed on thebasis of the medical record, that the appellant was suffering from paranoidschizophrenia long before the commission of the offence and the ailmentcontinued thereafter as well. What has, however, been urged by Mr.Pednekar is that the appellant has failed to prove that he was sufferingfrom unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offence. Thesubmissions that the fact that the appellant was suffering from theailment before or after the commission of the offence is of noconsequence when the appellant has failed to prove he was suffering fromthat ailment at the time when the offence was committed.
13. The burden to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind and asa result thereof he was incapable of knowing the consequences of his actsis on the defence. Section 84 IPC is one of the provision in Chapter IVIPC which deals with 'general exceptions'. That section provides thatnothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doingit, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the natureof the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Theburden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case withinthe purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused under Section 105 of theIndian Evidence Act. Under the said section, the Court shall presume theabsence of such circumstances. Illustration (a) to Section 105 is asfollows:
'(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, byreason of unsoundness of mind, he did not knowthe nature of the act.
The burden of proof is on A.'
14. The question whether the appellant has proved the existence ofcircumstances bringing his case within the purview of Section 84 will haveto be examined from the totality of circumstances. The unsoundness ofmind as a result whereof one is incapable of knowing consequences is astate of mind of a person which, ordinarily can be inferred from thecircumstances. If, however, an act is committed out of extreme anger andnot as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused would not be entitledto the benefit of exception as contained in Section 84 IPC. In fact, that isthe connection of the learned counsel for the State. It was contended thatthe prosecution evidence has established that the appellant by naturewas an angry person and under the fit of extreme anger, he committedthe murder of his wife as there was fight between them that morning andthere is nothing to show that at the relevant time the appellant was underan attack of paranoid schizophrenia.
15. At this stage, it is necessary to notice the nature of the burden thatis required to be discharged by the accused to get benefit of Section 84IPC. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat : 1964CriLJ472 , this Court has held that even if the accused was not able toestablish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed theoffence, the evidence placed before the Court may raise a reasonabledoubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredientsof the offence, including means rea of the accused and in that case thecourt would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that thegeneral burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.The burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no higher thanthat rests upon a party to civil proceedings which, in other words, meanspreponderance of probabilities. This Court held that:
'The doctrine of burden of proof in the context ofthe plea of insanity may be stated in the followingpropositions: (1) The prosecution must provebeyond reasonable doubt that the accused hadcommitted the offence with the requisite mensrea; and the burden of proving that always restson the prosecution from the beginning to the endof the trial. (2) There is a rebuttal presumptionthat the accused was not insane, when hecommitted the crime, in the sense laid down bySection 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused mayrebut it by placing before the court all the relevantevidence--oral, documentary or circumstantial,but the burden of proof upon him is no higherthan that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.(3) Even if the accused was not able to establishconclusively that he was insane at the time hecommitted the offence, the evidence placedbefore the court by the accused or by theprosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in themind of the court as regards one or more of theingredients of the offence, including mens rea ofthe accused and in that case the court would beentitled to acquit the accused on the ground thatthe general burden of proof resting on theprosecution was not discharged.'
16. In support of the contention that the crucial point of time forascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within thepurview of Section 84 IPC is the time when the offence is committed, thelearned counsel relied upon the following passage from the aforenoticedcase:
'When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the courthas to consider whether at the time ofcommission of the offence the accused, byreason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable ofknowing the nature of the act or that he was doingwhat was either wrong or contrary to law. Thecrucial point of time for ascertaining the state ofmind of the accused is the time when the offencewas committed. Whether the accused was insuch a state of mind as to be entitled to thebenefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can onlybe established from the circumstances whichpreceded, attended and followed the crime.'
17. Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time ofcommission of the offence is to be proved so as to the get the benefit of theexception.
18. We have already noticed earlier that unsoundness of mindpreceding occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. It hasrightly not been questioned by learned counsel for the State. Regardingthe state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence, inour opinion, ordinarily that would be an aspect to be inferred from thecircumstances. Further, as earlier noticed, the nature of the burden ofproof on the accused is no higher than that which rests upon a party tocivil proceedings.
19. The circumstances that stand proved in the case in hand are these:
1. The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering frompsychiatric illness.
2. Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part.
3. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 -Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
4. Within a short span soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25times to hospital.
5. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.
6. The weak motive of killing of wife - being that she was opposingthe idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.
7. Killing in day light - no attempt to hide or run away.
20. Mr. Arun Pednekar relies upon Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. TheState of Maharashtra : 1972CriLJ1523 , to contend that mere fact thatthe appellant did not make any attempt to run away or that he committedthe crime in day light and did not try to hide it or that motive to kill his wifewas very weak, would not indicate that at the time of commission of theact the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind or he did nothave requisite mens rea for the commission of the offence. It is correctthat these fats itself would not indicate insanity. In the present case,however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but it is the totality of thecircumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record to prove that theappellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The unsoundnessof mind before and after incident is a relevant fact. From thecircumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably drawnthat the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. He wasunder an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance hasbeen placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard tothe nature of burden on the appellant. We are of the view that theappellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required bySection 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC.We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result ofextreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time ofcommission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing thenature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he isentitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction andsentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.
21. Before parting, we wish to place on record our deep appreciationfor the able assistance rendered by Dr. Shyamla Pappu appearing asamicus curie for the appellant.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment ofthe High Court and allow the appeal. The appellant shall be set at libertyforthwith, if not required in any other case.