Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs.

State Of Maharashtra

(2003) 7 SCC 748

PETITIONER:

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale

RESPONDENT:

State of Maharashtra

Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, H Sema

Facts of the Case:

1. The appellant was the Police Constable. He and Surekha were married in 1987

2. On the morning of April 24, 1994, an argument broke out between a man and a woman. While
Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, a passerby hit her with a sledgehammer. The
protester was immediately taken by police to a quarterback. Surekha was rushed to the hospital.
He was found dead. After a thorough investigation, the applicant filed a lawsuit against the
murder of his wife.

3. The weak motive for the wife's murder was that she was opposed to the idea that the applicant
had left the job of Constable Police.

4. The complainant has a family history of his father suffering from a mental illness.

5. The cause of the disease is unknown - heredity plays a role.

6. The complainant had been undergoing psychiatric treatment since 1992 and was diagnosed
with paranoid schizophrenia.
7. Shortly afterward, immediately after the incident from June 27 to December 5, 1994, he had to
be taken to the hospital 25 times for treatment.

8. The transmitter is regularly treated for mental illness.

9. In support of his argument he relied on past psychiatric treatment and the testimony of two
doctors who were preparing his medical record and said he suffered from suspicious thoughts,
vicious delusions, and insomnia and was insane the insanity of the opponent, at the time of the
crime, was a great petition filed before the court.

Issues Involved:

Issue: Whether the charge of murder under section 302 of IPC is vitiated on account of insanity
as provided by section 84 of IPC?

Elements required for the commission of the crime:-

 Actus reus
 Mens rea

Legally, especially in criminal law, a motive is a motivating factor. Motivation itself is not a
feature of a given crime; however, the legal system allows for a good reason to justify the
plaintiff's valid reasons for committing a crime, at least when those reasons may be unclear or
difficult to identify. Motivation in itself does not constitute a crime. It must be in line with the
criminal intent that is most needed to commit the crime. The purpose of a crime simply means
the intent to design or carry out an act prohibited by criminal law without any reason or excuse.

The basic premise of the criminal obligation is that there must be a wrongful act committed with
the wrong intent means that mens rea. This principle is combined with the law, actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea, which means 'an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also
legally accused'. Just a criminal motive followed by a prohibited act cannot be a crime. Similarly,
the actus reus just ceases to be a crime as there is no mens rea. Purpose and motivation are often
confused as to the similarities and similarities. The two, however, are different and should be
separated. The concept of guilt usually does not involve motive. A bad motive cannot be a reason
to condemn a person. State Court of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arun Kumar 1 emphasized that the
evidence was inconsistent when there was no evidence of guilt in the accused and did not need to
be convicted. In the present case, the prosecutor may be able to state the appropriate motive for
the action but the need for section 302 IPCs has not been proven as required by the code.

The Unsoundness of the Mind

Article 84 of the Indian Penal Code states that intellectual property protects the criminal debt. It
has been accepted as a defense of a criminal case on the premise that 'the insane person is insane
and therefore cannot have the necessary excuses to commit a crime'.

Insanity is often referred to as insanity and, according to medical science, is a mental illness that
impairs a man's mental capacity. In other words, insanity is another word for mental
abnormalities due to various factors and exists at different levels. To claim the benefit of section
84, it must be proved that at the time of the trial, the respondent was not a composer and that
mental illness was at that level and it was necessary for him to pass one of the tests set out in the
section. These are:-

 First, the defendant could not determine the nature of the action and,
 Second, which the defendant was barred from mental illness on the grounds that what he
was doing was wrong or illegal.

In the case of Phulabhai v. State of Maharashtra 2, the Bombay High Court continued to grant a
crazy request to the suspect, who was suffering from a chronic illness. The defendant in a suicide
attempt jumped into the well with his child which resulted in the death of the deceased. The
appeal was dismissed even though medical evidence was not available in the case. The court
ruled in favor of the psychiatrist on the grounds that the lack of medical evidence did not justify
dementia.

In State v. Mohinder Singh3, in which evidence showed that the defendant was suffering from
schizophrenia and that the state existed before and after the incident, was held to account for
1
2003)2 SCC 202
2
(1976) CrLj 1519
3
(1983) 2 SCC 274
insanity. In addition, it was stated that prior to the conclusion of any case, appropriate
circumstances, such as the defendant's conduct before the offense and his post-trial conduct,
should be considered.

In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. the State of Gujrat 4, this Court held that
although the defendant could not clearly show that he was insane at the time of committing the
crime, the evidence presented before the Court could raise reasonable doubts The court's opinion
of one or more elements of the case, including that the general burden of the evidence in the
prosecution was not removed.

The Supreme Court has set out the legal position on the burden of evidence in the case of a
petition for madness on the following proposals: -

(i) The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent has committed the
offense for the necessary reasons; and the burden of proving that he or she is subject to continued
persecution from the beginning to the end of the trial;

(ii) It is believed that the accused person was not insane, at the time of committing the offense, in
the manner set out in section 84; the respondent may challenge it by presenting to the Court all
relevant oral, written or factual evidence, but the burden of proof against him or her does not
exceed that of the party in the trial, that is, to prove his or her accountability;

(iii) Even if the respondent was not fully aware that he or she was insane at the time of the crime,
the evidence presented by the Court by the respondent or prosecutors may raise reasonable
doubts in the mind of the Court that the remaining burden on prosecutors has not been released.

When a suspect makes a request for insanity, the burden of proof lies with him. But a man who is
mad cannot defend himself properly and effectively. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to
consider the defense of the defendant in light of the written evidence.

In Kuttappan v. the State of Kerala5, Items placed before a court will sometimes not be sufficient
to remove the burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act; however, it may create reasonable
doubts in the court's opinion as to whether or not one of the necessary ingredients of the case

4
AIR 1964 SC 1563
5
1986 CrLj 271(Ker)
itself, either actus reus or mens rea. If it raises reasonable doubts in the court's mind as to
whether the respondent had a good reason for the case, the defendant shall be entitled to doubt.
In such a case, the prosecution must be deemed to have failed to prove the defendant's guilt
without hesitation.

The insane claim contained water because the defendant's previous conviction was substantiated
by an expert's opinion, accepted under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Kuttappan v. State
of Kerala6, as long as the property placed before a court creates doubt in the mind of the type of
mens rea or actus rea, the benefit of the doubt goes into defense. Although pleading may not be
established as required by the Code. Also, the fact that the pre-poison concert has not yet been
established, the same is explained below.

Improper issuance of Testimony by prosecutors:

In the present case before this prestigious court, even if the appeal is not considered by the
competent court, the prosecutor has not yet found the defendant's case without question as
required by the code. As this case involves poisoning, the prosecutor must establish these
important matters as set out in the case of Dharambir Singh vs. State of Punjab7.

 That the suspect was poisoned

 That the suspect was in possession of the poison
 That the defendant had a chance to poison

And with all of the above requirements to be met in order to find the defendant's case, the failure
of any of the above may be strong enough to create doubts about the defense obligation.
Likewise in the present case, the prosecutor failed to produce the same.

Judgment:

Considering the nature of the burden on the applicant, the opinion of the judges that the appellant
has proven the existence of the circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act,
for the benefit of Section 84 IPC. They could not hold that the crime was committed out of
6
1986 CrLj 271(Ker)
7
Criminal appeal no. 98 of 1958, decided on nov.4, 1958
anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the crime, the applicant
could not determine the nature of the act due to a lack of understanding, therefore, he is entitled
to benefit from Section 84 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentencing of the complainant
cannot be supported. Appeal allowed.

ANALYSIS

Protection of madness is recognized in India in terms of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
which reads as follows: -

"Sec.84: There is no crime committed by a person who, while doing so, due to mental illness,
may not know the nature of the act, or whether he is doing something wrong or illegal."

Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act the opinion of an expert in the field of science, technical
or specialized evidence is valid evidence to guide the fact that he or she understands
scientifically accepted principles with reference where appropriate. Therefore, once an
application for insanity has been established as a defense, the facts can be sought professional
help but the decision cannot be referred to a specialist and must be to the facts inspector of the
Court.

“Section 84 sets out the legal test for prosecution in cases of suspected mental illness. There is no
definition of ‘mindfulness’ in the IPC. The courts, however, have largely treated this statement
as equals madness. But the word 'madness' does not have a literal meaning. It is a term used to
describe different levels of mental disorders. Therefore, everyone, mentally ill, is not a pso facto
freed from the burden of crime. A distinction must be made between official madness and
medical madness. The court is concerned about legal insanity, not medical malpractice. ”

Defendant seeking compensation for an act under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will testify
to legal insanity and not medical madness. The definition of “absurdity” is not yet defined in the
Indian Penal Code and is generally regarded as equivalent to madness. But the word madness has
different meanings in different contexts and describes different levels of mental disorders.
Everyone suffering from a mental illness is not an ipso facto exemption from a criminal offense.
Just because the defendant is arrogant, bizarre, unconcerned and mentally retarded, or that his
physical and mental illness has weakened his mind and affected his emotions or indulged in
certain unusual activities, or the thought of being insane for a few moments or of having epilepsy
and abnormal behavior or ethics is not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the
Indian Penal Code.

The next question that needs to be considered about who the job lies in is to prove it. Legally, the
idea is that everyone is healthy in consciousness until they know the natural consequences of
their actions. The burden of proof in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act rests with the
defendant. Though the burden is on the defendant but he does not have to prove the same without
reasonable doubt, but simply satisfies the foresight of the possibilities. Responsibility should be
exercised by presenting evidence about the defendant's conduct before the trial, his or her
immediate or immediate actions in relation to his or her state of health by producing medical
evidence and other relevant material. Even if the defendant has a vague idea, Section 84 of the
Indian Penal Code will not help, in the event that it is found that the defendant knew that what he
was doing was wrong or that it was against the law. To find out, it is important to look at pre-
existing conditions and behaviors, to go and follow crime. Defendants conduct relating to the
desire to conceal a weapon and the conduct to avoid criminal detection goes a long way in
determining whether he is aware of the consequences of his actions. Reference to this
communication may be taken from the decision of this Court in the case of T.N. Lakshmaiah v.
State of Karnataka8, where it was held as follows:

“Under the Evidence Act, the obligation to prove any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter
rests with the defendant even though the required standard of evidence does not meet the
expectations of prosecutors. It is enough if the defendant is able to present his case under the
condition of any other common ground other than the level of uncertainty of opportunity, as a
result, he may succeed not because he is proving his case in trouble but because the Kind he has
provided puts doubt in the prosecution case. ”

In the province of M. v. Ahmadull 9, the Court held that the burden of proof that the defendant's
mental state, at the critical time, as defined by section, lies with the defendant claims that the
benefit of this exemption agreement Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Figure (a)]. A legal
position is determined by the fact that everyone is considered to be of sound mind and that he or

8
(2002) 1 SCC 219
9
AIR 1961 SC 998
she has good reason to be responsible for his or her actions unless proven otherwise. The Mere
ipse dixit of the defendant is not sufficient to obtain the benefit of the variance under Chapter IV.

In a case where an alternative is inserted outside Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the court
should consider that, at the time the case was dismissed, the defendant, due to a
misunderstanding, could not know the nature of the act or whether he was doing something
wrong or illegal. All the activities of the defendant, from the time of the trial until the
continuation of the proceedings, are valid for the purpose of determining whether the proposed
application was true, valid, or contemplated.

CONCLUSION:

In a case where an alternative is inserted outside Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the court
should consider that, at the time the case was dismissed, the defendant, due to a
misunderstanding, could not know the nature of the act or whether he was doing something
wrong or illegal. All performance of the respondent, from the time of the trial until the
continuation of the proceedings, is appropriate for the purpose of determining whether the
proposed application was true, valid, or contemplated. The issue of legal and legal insanity is
often presented in the courts and creates a lot of doubts about the state of madness and his mind
at the time of the posting of the crime. There are three parts of the mind that control perception,
emotion, and will. IPC, s. 84 only frees the one whose intellectual capacity is affected. Granting
is considered to be very small, and does not make provision for a case where the person's
emotions and will are so much affected by giving control of the mental power to work. Courts
should also adopt a broader view of insanity and present a sense of diminished responsibility.