Certain Behaviors are a Function of Mental Disorder

The State vs. Chhotelal Gangadin

Filed Under: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
Appellant: The State
Respondent: Chhotelal Gangadin
Citation: AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 203 (V 46 C 64)
Court: In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judges: T.P. Naik and B.K. Chaturvedi

This is an appeal made for the confirmation of the death sentence given to Chhotelal Gangadin by the Sessions Judge for the murder of his wife and child.

Facts

Chhotelal Gangadin was a workman in a railway gang. He lived in one of the railway quarters with his wife and daughter. The day the incident happened it was his weekly off. Paridin, a teammate of Chhotelal, saw him at noon the following day. He asked him if his wife was ill.

Chhotelal replied that he had killed her and his daughter. Paridin then looked at his clothes and saw blood on them. Another witness who also questioned him reported that he had admitted to him that he had murdered his wife and daughter with an axe.

These two witnesses along with several other people followed Chhotelal to his quarters. They saw that the doors were open and he was eating. Inside the quarters they found the dead bodies lying on a cot covered with a quilt.

The matter was then reported to the Police who came in the afternoon and seized the bloodstained clothes that Chhotelal was still wearing. Chhotelal also gave the police the axe with which he had committed both the murders. The dead bodies were found in a position of the daughter suckling milk from the mother's breast.

At the Sessions Court, Chhotelal's lawyer raised the plea of insanity. However, the Sessions Court, found Chhotelal guilty of murder of his wife and daughter and sentenced him to death.

The case was then referred to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chhotelal declined to appeal against the death sentence.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the case under four broad heads and then proceeded to observe whether the cumulative effects of the circumstances could lead to the inference that Chhotelal was of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 of the I.P.C. The four broad heads were as follows:
  1. Previous history of Chhotelal Gangadin.
  2. Nature and character of the crime.
  3. Conduct subsequent to the crime and
  4. Conduct during and after trial.

As far as the first point was concerned the Court examined the evidence of several witnesses. One of them was a medical practitioner who had examined Chhotelal a few months before the incident took place.

According to him, Chhotelal had been shouting aloud and running to attack others. He further added that it was only with difficulty that he had been made to sit. He had diagnosed Chhotelal as suffering from "temporary insanity" and had treated him for it.

Another witness, who was a 'vaidya', had also examined Chhotelal about 5 months before the incident. According to him, at that time he had been suffering from delirium due to fever. His symptoms during that time were that he used to remain silent for some time and then start speaking at random.

Evidence was also offered of the fact that Chhotelal had lost two children within a space of 8 to 12 months before the incident and this might also have affected him.

With respect to the second point, the Court stated that records showed that Chhotelal and his wife used to live in harmony; there was no evidence of any quarrel between them.

Further still, the murder had taken place at night and there were no signs of any premeditation or planning. Also one of the witnesses who was his neighbor had claimed that she had not heard any quarrel taking place on the night of the murder.

The Court also made reference to the position of the dead bodies, which indicated that he had caught his wife and daughter unawares. The Court stated that it was satisfied with the contention that there was no apparent motive for the murder. The brutality of the murder was also evident from the nature of injuries.

While taking into account the third point, the Court observed that there was overwhelming evidence of the fact that he had made no attempt at concealment. He did not try to hide or escape. He had in fact confessed the commission of the crime to the two witnesses.

The fact that he had been wearing bloodstained clothes all through his arrest also showed that he had not wanted to hide anything. Immediately after disclosing the crime to the two witnesses, he had gone back to his quarters and had started eating in the same room where the dead bodies were lying.

The Court also stated that Chhotelal had expressed no emotions throughout the proceedings and was talking as if nothing serious had taken place.

It therefore appeared to the Court that he had no consciousness of guilt and had been quite unresponsive and non-reacting to the gruesome surroundings. This according to the Court betrayed an abnormality that had to be taken into accoun

Also significant was the fact that even though the Civil Surgeon had not found any evidence of insanity in him during the period he was kept in observation in the jail, he had killed an undertrial fellow prisoner for no apparent reasons.

After analyzing the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court stated that there was no doubt that Chhotelal had been conscious of the nature of the act he had committed and had known vaguely that what he had done was wrong.

In reference to this point the Court also stated that at the commencement of the trial he had admitted his guilt and had prayed to be hanged. This indicated that he had been aware of the fact that what he had done had been against the law. However, his reactions to the abhorrent act were not normal reactions of a sane person.

Accordingly the Court concluded that Chhotelal had been of an unsound mind at the time he had committed the crime. He was consequently exempted from criminal responsibility on account of the murder. The Court declined to confirm the death sentence passed by the Sessions Judge and acquitted him of the charge of murder.

The Court further directed the Sessions Judge to take action under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code and order his detention in safe custody in a place and manner the Session Judge thought fit. The action was also to be reported to the State Government.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84, the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 374 and 471 of Criminal Procedure Code

Cases Referred:

  • (96) ILR 23 Cal 604, Queen Empress v Kadar Nasyer Shah
  • (46) AIR 1946 Nag 321 (V 33): ILR (1916) Nag 946: 47 Cri LJ 918, Deorao v. Emperor
  • ('56) (S) AIR 1956 Nag 187 (V 43): 1956 Nag LJ 304: 1956 Cri LJ 756, Ramhitrarn v. state of M.P
  • ('55) (S) AIR 1955 pat 209 (V 42): 1955 Cri LJ 825 Kamla Singh v. State
  • (1800) 27 St. Tr. 1281, R v Hadfield
  • (1849) 4 Cox CC 149, R.v. Layton
  • (1858) 6 HLC 746: 27 LJ QB 449, Cooper v. Slade
  • (1935) 1935 AC 462: 104 LJKB 433, Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions
  • (1936) 1936-2 All ER 1188: 1936 WN 190, Sodeman v. Rex
  • (1943) 1943 KB 607: 112 LJ 581, R. v Carr-Briant
  • (1955) 1955-1 All ER 266: 1955 AC 206, Chan Kau v The Queen
  • (1957) 1957-1 QB 399: 1956-3 WLR 724, R. v. Kemp
  • (1957) 1957-3 WLR 330: 1958-1 QB 36, R. v. Dunbar

Top

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra

Filed under: Sections 300 & 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant: Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2002 Cri.L.J.4356
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judges: YK Sabharwal & HK Sema

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale made an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life for murdering his wife.

Facts

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale, a police constable quarreled with his wife, Surekha and hit her with a grinding stone. She was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The Sessions Court found Shrikant guilty of murder.

Shrikant took the defence of insanity and contended that he was not normal when he committed the offence. He also produced medical records and evidence to show that he had been treated for paranoid schizophrenia several times. It was also shown that he had a family history of psychiatric illness. However, the prosecution was of the opinion that the offence had been committed as a result of extreme anger.

The issue that was under consideration was whether the offence was committed as a result of extreme anger or unsoundness of mind?

Arguments made on behalf of Shrikant:

It was argued in Shrikant's favor that he was suffering from insanity at the time of the crime and was therefore entitled to exemption on grounds of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments made on behalf of the State of Maharashtra:

Shrikant killed his wife not because of insanity but on account of extreme anger, which is different from insanity. It was contended that earlier too, he had displayed excitable behaviour and was described as one who by nature was a man of extreme anger. The prosecution also pointed out that his mental state at the time of the offence had not been proven to be "unstable or unsound".

Observations of the Court

On examining the evidence, the Court observed that there was a positive family history of psychiatric illnesses. It had also been proved from the evidence of the Government doctors that Shrikant had suffered from paranoid schizophrenia before and after the crime had been committed.

The Court observed that the mental status had to be proved 'when the act was being commissioned' to get the benefit of exception under the law. Though unsoundness of mind preceding the occurrence and following the occurrence could be established, the status at the time of the crime was questionable.

The circumstantial evidence pointed to the fact that at the time of the act, Shrikant was under a delusion. Thus, the anger theory, though not ruled out (as in schizophrenia extreme fits of anger are known to occur) cannot be disregarded.

Thus, the Court felt that there was reasonable doubt that at the time of the crime, Shrikant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the lower courts was set aside and Shrikant's appeal was allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 300 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Cases Referred:

  • Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 2443: 1973 (4) SCC 79: 1972 Cri LJ 1523
  • Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563: 1964 (2) Cri LJ 472: 1964 (7) SCR 361

Top