SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES,

BBD UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

IPC Case Study

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale V. State Of Maharashtra
(2003)

Submitted to: Ms. Soumya Srivastava

Submitted by: Ananya Singh
University Roll Number: 1220992016
Course: B.A.LL.B
 Acknowledgement

I am writing to acknowledge the receipt of the IPC Case Study Assignment. I confirm that
I have received the assignment instructions and understand the requirements for this task.

I appreciate the opportunity to delve into this area of study and will ensure that the
assignment is completed according to the stipulated guidelines and deadlines.

Thank you for entrusting me with this assignment, and I am committed to delivering a
thorough and well-researched analysis in accordance with the academic standards.

I look forward to submitting the completed assignment within the specified timeframe.

Ananya Singh
B.A.LL.B 4
th

semester

2
nd
year
 Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale V. State Of Maharashtra
(2003)
Citations:- (2003) 7 SCC 748

Court:- Supreme Court Of India

Bench:- Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice H Sema

Decided On:- 26th September 2002

Law applied
 Section 84 of IPC – Act of a person of unsound mind
 Section 302 of IPC – Punishment for murder

Facts Of The Case

1. The appellant was a Police Consable, He and Sarekles were married in the
year 1987

2. On the morning of 4th April, 1994, there was a quanel between husband and
wife. While Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit hes
with grinding stone on her head. The appellant washing clocites in the
bathroom, the appellant hit hes with grinding stone on her head. The appellare
immediately taken by the police to the quarter guard. Surekha was taken to dhe
Hospital. Site was found dead.

3. The weak motive of killing of wife being that she was opposing the idea of
the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.

4. The appellant has a family history his father was suffering from psychiatric
illness.

5. Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part.

6. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed
as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

7. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th Jane to 5th December,
1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital.
 8. Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.

9. In support of his contention he relied on past psychiatric treatment and the

testimony of two medical doctors who prepared his medical record and stated
that he suffered from suspicious ideas, persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and
was a paranoid schizophrenic.

10. Insanity of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, is the
main plea that was urged before the court.

Issues Involved
Whether the charge of muder under section 302 of IPC is vitiated on account of
insanity as provided by section 84 of IPC?

Rule
Elements required for the commission of the crime:-

 Actus reus
 Mens rea

In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce
a certain action, Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime, however,
the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible
the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be
obscure or hard to identify with.

Motive itself does not constitute any crime. It has to be companied by criminal
intention which is very much required for the commission of the crime. Criminal
intention simply means the purpose of design or doing an act forbidden by
criminal law without just cause or excuse.

The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful

act actus reus combined with the wrongful intention means mens rea. This
principle is embodied in the maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,
meaning 'an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally
blameworthy'. A mere criminal intention followed by a prohibited act cannot
constitute a crime. Similarly mere actus reus ceases to be crime as it lacks mens
rea.

Intention and motive are often confused as being one and the same. The two,
however, are distinct and have to be distinguished. The mental element of a crime
ordinarily involves no reference to motive. A bad motive cannot be the reason for
convicting a person. The apex court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arun Kumar
emphasised that proof of motive in the absence of proof of guilt of an accused
does not warrant his conviction.

In the present case, the prosecution may succeed in stating a pertinent motive to
the act but the requisite mens rea for section 302 IPC has not been proved as
required by the Code.

Unsoundness of mind
Section 84 of Indian Penal Code states that unsoundness of mind is a defence to a
criminal liability. It has been accepted as a defence to a criminal charge on the
theory that 'one who is insane has no mind and hence cannot have the necessary
mens rea to commit a crime".

Unsoundness of mind is commonly termed insanity and according to medical

science, is a disorder of the mind which impairs the mental faculties of a man. In
other words, insanity is another name for mental abnormality due to various
factors and exists in various degrees.

To invoke the benefit of section 84, it must be proved that at the time of
commission of the offence, the accused was non compos mentis and that
unsoundness of mind was of such a degree and nature as to fulfil one of the tests
laid down in the section. These are:-

Firstly, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and,

Secondly, that the accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from
understanding that what ne was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

In Phulabhai v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court went even

further to grant the plea of insanity to the accused, who was suffering from
ehronie and incurable illness. The accused in an attempt to commit suicide
jumped into a well along with her child resulting in the latter's death. The plea of
insanity was advanced though the medical evidence was absent in the case. The
court granted the benefit of plea of unsoundness of mind on the basis that the
absence of medical evidence did not justify the exclusion of common sense.

In State v. Mohinder Singh, where the evidence disclosed that the accused was
suffering from schizophrenia and this state existed before and after the
occurrence, it was held that the defence of insanity had been established. Further
it was stated that before coming to the conclusion of any case, the relevant
circumstances, like behaviour of the accused before the commission of the
offence and his behaviour after the commission of the offence, should be taken
into consideration.

In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. the State of Gujrat, 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 m 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: -

 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
begmning to the end of the trial;

 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;

 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 Kerala, 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 caseitself, 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 guil 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 Kerala, 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 Punjab.

 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 opmion 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 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 [PC. 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 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 noța 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 contests and describes different levels of mental disorders. 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 ceriain 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 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 Karnataka, 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", 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. A legal position is determined by the fact that everyone is
considered to be of sound mind and that he or 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 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.