SURENDERA MISHRAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

                      [2011] 1 S.C.R. 133


                    SURENDERA MISHRA                              A
                               v.
                  STATE OF JHARKHAND
              (Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2006)
                      JANUARY 6, 2011
                                                                  B
       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND
          CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

i        Penal Code, 1860: s. 84 - Applicability of - An act will
· not be an offence, if done by a person who, at the time of doing C
· the same by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
; knowing the nature of the act - Burden to prove unsoundness
1 of mind uls. 105 of Evidence Act is on the accused - In order
  to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the
  circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and D
  following the crime - Even if the accused estabJishes
  unsoundness of mind, s. 84 will not come to its rescue, in case
  it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was
  wrong or that it was contrary to law - In the instant case, the
  case of the accused did not come within the exception E
  contemplated u/.c:;. 84 - The prosecution had proved that
  immediately after the accused shot dead the deceased, he
  threatened his driver of dire consequences - Not only that,
  he ran away from the place of occurrence and threw the
  weapon of crime in the well in order to conceal himself from F
  the crime - The said conduct of the accused subsequent to
. the commission of the offence clearly suggest that he knew
· that whatever he had done was wrong and illegal - Moreover,
· the fact that the accused was running a medical shop showed
  that he was mentally fit for same - The accused though G
  suffered from certain mental instability even before and after
  the incident but from that one cannot infer on a balance of
  preponderance of probabilities that he at the time of the
  commission of the offence did not know the nature of his act
                                                                  H
     134       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A that it was either wrong or contrary to law - Evidence Act, 1872
  - s.105.
        Words and phrases: Expression 'unsoundness of mind'
     - Meaning (ff.
B         The prosecution caee was that on 11.8.2000, the
     deceaaed was going In a car driven by PW-1. He stopped
     the car near a shop and called PW·2. While the deceased
     was talking to PW·2, the accused-appellant came there
,.., with a pistol and pushed PW·2 and fired at point blank
     range at the deceased. The ~c_cy!led threatened the driver
"'   who then "fled- away from the place of occurrence and
     Informed the famlly members of the deceased about the
     Incident. Thereafter, the deceased was rushed to hospital
     where he was declared dead. During trial, the only plea
D of appellant was that by virtue of unsoundness of mind,            J.,
     the act done by him would come within general
     exception under Section 84, IPC and, therefore, he
     cannot be held guilty for the act done by him. The trial
     court did not accept the said plea and convicted the
E    appellant  under Section 302 and Section 27 of Arms Act.
     The High Court upheld the conviction. The Instant appeal
     was filed challenglng the order of the High Court.
           Dismissing the appeal, the Court                          t
F      HELD: 1.1. A plaln reading of Section 84, IPC shows
  that an act wlll not be an offence, If done by a person who,
  at the time of doing the same by reason of unsoundness
  of mind, Is Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
  what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. An
G accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an ac:t
  under Section 84, IPC Is to prove legal Insanity and not
  medical Insanity. Expression "unsoundness of mind"
  has not been defined In the IPC and It has mainly been

H                                134
      SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                  135

 , treated as equivalent to Insanity. But the term Insanity           A
   carries different meaning In different contexts and
   describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every
   person who is suffering frQm mental disease Is not Ipso
   facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that
'< the accused is .conc·eited, odd, irascible and his brain is        B
1
: not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments

~ from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak
: and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual
   acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he
   was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal               c
   behaviour or the behaviour is queer are not sufficient to
   attraf':t the application of Section 84, IPC. [Paras 7, 9) [141·
: C-D; 142-D-G]
~      Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8
i   SCC 66. Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)         D
    16 sec 109 ~ rened on.
         State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (1983) 2 SCC 274
    Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002)
    7 SCC 748 - distinguished.                                        E
        1.2. In law, the presumption is that every person is
    sane to the extent that he-- knows the natural
    consequences of his act. The burden of proof in the face        ,,
    of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. F
    Though the burden is on the accused but he is not
    required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt,
    but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The
    onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to
    the cond··r.t of the accused prior to the offence, his
    conduct at tt•.:- time or immediately after the o,ffence with G
    reference to hi~ "'ledical condition by production of
    medical evidence and other relevant factors. Even· if the
    accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84,
    IPC will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the
    accused knew that what he was doing Wea::. wrong or that H
    136     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that, it is
  imperative to take into consideration the circumstances
  and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the
  crime. Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for
  concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to
B avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to
  whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by
  him. [Para 10] [142-G-H; 143-A-D]

        T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 1 SCC
    219 - relied on.
c
       1.3. The first evidence in regard to the unsoundness
  of mind as brought by the appellant was the medical
  prescription dated 18th October, 1987 (Ext. A-1) in which
  symptom of the appellant was noted as psychiatric with
D paranoid features and medicine was advised for sit:c:p..
  Other prescriptions were dated 9th January, 1988 (Ext. A)
  and 5th of September 1998 in which only medicines had
  been prescribed. Other prescriptions (Exts. A~S to A-7)
  also did not spell out the disease the appellant was
E suffering but gave the names of the m,edicines, he was
  advised to take. The occurrence took place on 11th of
  August 2000. From these prescriptions, the only
  inference that could be drawn is that the appellant had
  paranoid feeling but that too was not proximate to the
F date of occurrence. To establish that acts done are not
                                                              t
  offence and come within general exception, it is required
  to be proved that at the time of commission of the act,
  accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was
  incapable of knowing that his acts were wrong or
G contrary to law. In the instant case, the prosecution had
  proved beyond all reasonable doubt that immediately
  after the appellant had shot- dead the deceased,
  threatened his driver PW.1, of dire consequences~ Not
  only that, he ran away from the place of occurrence and
  threw the country-made pistol, the weapon of crime, in
H
  SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 137


the well in order to conceal himself from the crime, which        A
was recovered later on. The said conduct of the appellant
subsequent to the commission of the. offence clearly
suggest that he knew that whatever he had done was
wrong and illegal. Further, he was running a mec'ical
shop and came to the place of occurrenc~ and shot dead            8
the deceased. Had the appellant been a person of
unsound mind, it may not have been, possible for him to
run a medical shop. The appellant though suffered from
certain mental instability even before and after the
incident but from that one cannot infer· on a balance of          c
preponderance of probabilities that the appellant at the
time of the commission of the offence did not know the
nature of his act; that it was either wrong or contrary to
law. The plea of the appellant did not come within the                I
exception contemplated under Section 84, IPC. [Para 11]           o(
[144-D-H; 145-A-D]
                     Case Law Reference:
    (1983) 2 sec 274       distinguished        Paras 4, 12
    (2002) 7 sec 748       distinguished        Para 5, 12        E

    (2007) 8 sec 66        relied on             Para 7
    (2008) 16 sec 109 relied on                  Para 8
    (2002) 1 sec 219       relied on             Para 10          F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 177 of 2006.
     From the Judgment & Order dated 29.6.2005 of the High
Court of Jhrakhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. (DB) 446      G
of 2004.
    Tanmayei ,:..garwal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellant
    D.N. Gobµrdhan for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    H
    138       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A       CHANORAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Sole appellant
    was put on trial for commission of the offence under Section
    302 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms
  Act. The trial court held him guilty on both the counts and
  sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section
B 302 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was
  awarded under Section 27 of the Arms Act. His conviction and
  sentence has been upheld by the High Court in appeal and
  hence the appellant is before us with the leave of the Court.
          2. According to the prosecution, on 11th of August, 2000
C   the deceased Chandrashekhar Choubey was going in a car
    driven by PW.1, Vidyut Kumar Modi and when reached Chas
    Nala crossing, he asked the driver to stop the car and call ·
    Shasdhar Mukherjee (PW.2), the owner of Sulekha Auto Parts.
    As directed, the driver called said Shasdhar Mukherjee and the
D   deceased started talking to him from inside the car. According
    to the prosecution all of a sudden the appellant, the owner of
    the Medical Hall came there with a country-made pistol, pushed
    Shasdhar Mukherjee aside and fired at point-blank range at the
    deceased. The driver fled away from the place of occurrence f
E   and informed the family members of the deceased, leaving the
    deceased in the car itself. PW.4, Vined Kumar Choubey along ,
    with the· driver came back and rushed the deceased to the
    Chas Nala Colliery Hospital, where he was declar.eddead. On
    the basis of the aforesaid report a case under Section 302 of         t
F   the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was
    registered against the appellant. After usual investigation police
    submitted the charge-sheet and ultimately the appellant was put
    on trial for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the
    Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
G       3. In order to brin1fhome the charge the prosecution             ~,
  altogether examined nine witnesses besides a large number
  of documents were exhibited. Only plea of the appellant during
  the trial was that by virtue of unsoundness of mind, the act done
  by him comes within general exception under Section 84 of the
H Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for
  SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                     139
       [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
the act done by him. The aforesaid plea did not find favour with     A
the trial court as also by the High Court, in appeal. In this
connection the High Court has observed as follows:
    "On the basis of the evidence, adduced on behalf of both
    the parties regarding mental status of accused Surendra
    Mishra, learned court below came to a safe conclusion            8
    that accused was not suffering from mental instability even
    prior to the incident or at the time of incident. I also find
    no ground to differ with such finding.
          I have noticed the observations of the learned court       c
    below that although some evidence were placed by the
    defence in support of the mental trouble of the accused,
    in absence of specific finding by the doctor or degree and
    nature of mental trouble, it can not be relied upon to
    declare the accused Surendra Mishra mentally unfit or that       D
    he was insane at the time of occurrence."
     4. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant being a person
of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence,
his act comes within general exception as provided under             E
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the appellant
deserves to be acquitted. In support of the submission he has
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of State
of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, (1983) 2 SCC 274, in which it
has been held as fol.lows:                                           F
    'The doctor had examined accused a little before as also
    a little after the occurrence and he was found insane. The
    detailed reasons given by both Dr. Harbans Lal and Dr.
    Ramkumar have been corroborated by each other. From
    the evidence also it is clear that he was talking in a very      G
    unusual manner saying things to the effect that he had seen
    Lord Shiva in front of him and the alike. It cannot be said
    that the finding of the High Gourt was wrong. In view of these
    circumstances we are not in a position to take a different
                                                                     H
    140       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 1 S.C.R.


A         view particularly when the appellant was suffering from
          schizophrenia."
                                                                         't-
       5. Another decision of this Court on which reliance has
  been placed is in the case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v.
  State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 sec 748, and our attention has
B been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 20 of the
  judgment:
       . "In the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid
         facts but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the
c        light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant
         was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The
         unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a
         relevant fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly
         an inference can be reasonably drawn that the appellant
D        was under a delusion at the relevant time. He was under
         an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which
                                                                         A..
         reliance has been placed is not ruled out under
         schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden
         on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has
         proved the existence of circumstances as required by
E
         Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get the benefit
         of Section 84 IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime
         was committed as a result of an extreme fit of anger. There
         is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of
         the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the
F        nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and,
         thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence,
         the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be
         sustained."

G        6. Nobody had appeareJ on behalf of the respondent.
    However, we have perused the records and bestowed our
    consideration to the submission advanced by Mr. Agarwal and
    we do not find any substance in the same. In view of the plea
    raised it is desirable to consider the meaning of the expression
H   "unsoundness of mind" in the context of Section 84 of the Indian
       SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                       141
            [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
      Penal Code and for its appreciation, we deem it expedient to          A
      reproduce the same. It reads as follows:
          "84. Act of a person of unsound mind.-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
                                                                            B
          knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is
          either wrong or contrary to law. n

      Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is found in its Chapter IV,
      which deals with general exceptions.
           7. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is
                                                                            c
      evident that an act will not be an offence, if done by a person
      who, at the time of doing the same by reason of unsoundness
      of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what
      he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. But what is.
-~    unsoundness of mind? This Court had the occasion to consider D
      this question in the case of Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State
      of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66, in which it has been held as
      follows:
                 "The standard to be applied is whether according to        E
          the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act
          was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is
          conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right,
          or that the physical and mental ailments from which he
          suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected         F
          his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain
          unusual acts in the past, or that he was liable to recurring
          fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to
          getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his
          behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be
 }-                                                                         G
          sufficient to attract the application of this section."
           8. The scope and ambit of the Section 84 of the Indian
      Penal Code also came up for consideration before this Court
      in the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
      (2008) 16 SCC 109 =AIR 2009 SC 31 in which it has been                H
    142        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 1 S.C.R.


A held as follows:
                                                                         .,_
          "Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in
          cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no
          definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in IPC. The courts have,
          however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to
B         insanity. But the term 'insanity' itself has no precise
          definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of
          mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally
          diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
          responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal
c         insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with
          legal insanity, and not with medical insanity."
           9. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from
    liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is
D to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression
    "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Indian Penal
    Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity.
                                                                         "-
    But the term insanity carries different meaning in different
    contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder.
    Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso
E
    facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the
  · accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite
    all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he
    suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his             T
    emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of
F insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits
    and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer
    are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the
    Indian Penal Code.

G      10. Next question which needs consideration is as to on
                                                                         ~.
  whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the
  presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he
  knaws the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof
  in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the
H accused.  Though the burden is on the accused but he is not
 SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                    143
      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but A
merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has
to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of
the accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or'
immediately after the offence with reference to his medical
condition by production of medical evidence and other relevant B
factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind,
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to its rescue,.
in case it is fdund that the accused knew that what he was doing
was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain
that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstancesc
and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime.
Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment
of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of
crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the
consequences of the act done by him. Reference in. this 0
connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case
of TN. lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219,
in which it has been held as follows:
          "9. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any
    of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the         E
    accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the
    same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if
    an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of
    any of the general exceptions by the standard of
    preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may    F
    succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt
    but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the
    prosecution case.
          10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadu/l,AIR 1961 SC 998,
    this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental       G
    condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time,
    such as is described by the section, lies on the accused
    who claims the benefit ofthis exemption vide Section 105
    of the Evidence Act [Illustration {a)]. The settled position
    of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to         H
    144       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 1 S.C.R.


A         possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible
          for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit   't--
          of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of
          the exceptions under Chapter IV.
                 11. In a case where the exception under Section 84
B
          of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the court has to
          consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence,
          the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was
          incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is
          doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire
c         conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission
          of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings
          commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as
          to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an
          afterthought."
D
         11. In the background of what we have observed above,
    we proceed to consider the facts of the present case. The first
    evidence in regard to the unsoundness of mind as brought by
    the appellant is the medical prescription dated 18th October,
    1987 (Ext. A-1) in which symptom of the appellant has been
E
    noted as psychiatric with paranoid features and medicine was
  · advised for sleep. Other prescriptions are dated 9th January,
    1988 (Ext. A) and 5th of September 1998 in which only
    medicines have been prescribed. Other prescriptions (Exts. A-         t
    5 to A-7) also do not spell out the disease the appellant was
F suffering but give the names of the medicines, he was advised
    to take. The occurrence had taken place on 11th of August
    2000. From these prescriptions, the only inference one can
    draw is that the appellant had paranoid feeling but that too was
    not proximate to the date of occurrence. It has to be borne in
G mind that to establish that acts done are not offence and come
    within general exception it is required to be proved that at the
    time of commission of the act, accused by reason of
    unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing that his acts
   were wrong or contrary to law. In the present case the
H prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that
  SURENDERA MISHRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                     145
       [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
immediately after the appellant had shot- dead the deceased,         A
threatened his driver PW.1, Vidyut Kumar Modi of dire
consequences. Not only that, he ran away from. the place of
occurrence and threw the country-made pistol, the weapon of
crime, in the well in order to conceal himself from the crime.
However, it was recovered later on. The aforesaid conduct of         B
the appellant subsequent to the commission of the offence
clearly goes to suggest that he knew that whatever he had done
was wrong and illegal. Further, he was running a medical shop
and came to the place of occurrence and shot dead the
deceased. Had the appellant been a person of unsound mind,           c
it may not have been possible for him to run a medical shop.
We are of the opinion that the appellant though suffered from
certain mental instability even before and after the incident but
from that one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of
probabilities that the appellant at the time of the commission
                                                                     0
of the offence did not know the nature of his act; that it was
either wrong or contrary to law. In our opinio!', the plea of the
appellant does not come within the exception contemplated
under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
      12. As regards the decisions of this Court in the cases of     E
Mohinder Singh (supra) and Shrikant Anandrao Bhosa/e
(supra), relied on by the appellant same are clearly
distinguishable. In those decisions, this Court on fact found that
the accused at the time of commission of crime was suffering
from Schizophrenia and in that background held that accused          F
is entitled to the protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code. Here on fact, we have found that the appellant was not
suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of commission
of the crime and therefore the decisions relied on in no way
advance the case of the appellant.                                   G
    13. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is
dismissed accordingly.
D.G.                                         Appeal dismissed.