Degree of Mental Illness

Ramdulare Ramathin Sunar vs. The State

Filed under: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Ramdulare Ramadhin Sunar
Respondent: State
Court: In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: AIR 1959 MADHYA PRADESH 259
Judge: G.P.Bhutt and T.P.Naik

Facts

Ramdulare had allegedly killed Chhedilal at his house. On the day before the incident, Ramdulare had slept on the ground floor and dug a pit in the inner room. Next morning; Chhedilal had come to Ramdulare's house and asked for Ramkali. Ramdulare offered to open the door.

After opening the door, he killed Chhedilal and buried him in the inside room and covered it. When the family members questioned him, he admitted to committing the crime and went to report the incident at the police station. He also offered to help to recover the body. He took the defence of insanity.

However, the Sessions Court held him guilty of murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. In evidence, three of Ramdulare's close relatives were examined who stated that a few years ago he had an attack of insanity which lasted a few months. Thereafter, it recurred in the winter months every year.

However, one of the key witnesses Betibai, his wife was not examined. The witnesses had stated that when he had the attacks, Ramdulare would sit quietly and gaze vacantly, did not reply to questions when asked would not eat for days together and smoked heavily. The witnesses also stated that he was never violent.

Observations of the Court

After examining the evidence, the Court held that it was not possible to notice any deviation in his condition from normal. From the evidence it was clear that Ramdulare had committed the crime deliberately and it was conducted after taking precautions to avoid detection.

The Court opined that the evidence did not show any deterioration in the mental condition leading to murder (refer to quotes) and that he knew what he was doing. Therefore, the High Court upheld the order of the High Court.

Sections Referred:

Section 84 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code

Cases Referred:

The State vs. Chotelal Gangadin: (59) AIR 1959 Madh Pra 203 (V 46): 1959

Quotes from the Judgment:

"the evidence, the Court opined, in the case does not disclose any progressive deterioration in the mental condition of the accused leading up to and precipitating in the murder of the deceased, nor does it show that the accused had any 'psychotic hangovers' or 'persisting symptoms of abnormality'.

Top

The State vs. Gourishankar Kawadu Shende

Filed Under: Sections 84 and 302, the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 367& 439, the Criminal Procedure Code
Appellant: The State
Respondent/ accused opponent: Gourishankar Kawadu Shende
Citation: AIR 1996 BOMBAY 179 (V 53 C 34)
Court: In the High Court of Maharastra at Nagpur
Judges: Wagle and Deshmukh

This is an application made by the State for an alteration of the sentence of imprisonment of life to a death sentence in the case of Gourishankar Kawadu Shende for the brutal murder of his wife Anusuya.

Facts

Gourishankar Kawadu Shende married Anusuya and lived with her for about 14 years. During this time she gave birth to 4 children. About 13 years after the marriage, Gourishankar's financial circumstances deteriorated. He then suggested to his wife that she should sell herself for money and provide the means of livelihood for the family.

His wife, Anusuya was unwilling to do this and ultimately she left her husband along with her four children and went to her brother who lived across the street. On the day of the incident Anusuya, accompanied by sisters-in-law went to the vegetable and fish market.

While they were at the fish market they saw Gourishankar some distance away. Upon seeing the three women, Gourishankar rushed towards them with a knife in his hand. Seeing this, the sisters-in law stepped to one side while Anusuya began to run.

Gourishankar chased Anusuya and held her by her hair. He then stabbed her with the knife on her abdomen. The blows were of such intensity that her intestines spilled out and she collapsed and died immediately.

While this was going on a recently recruited police constable Nana, ran to rescue Anusuya and caught hold of Gourishankar from behind. Gourishankar however, gave him a push and Nana fell down. While this was happening the police constable on duty came and arrested Gourishankar with the help of two other constables.

After the investigation, Gourishankar was sent up for trial and the Magistrate transferred the case to the Sessions Court. Gourishankar however, denied the charge and took the defense of insanity. At the Sessions Court Gourishankar was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The State however, challenged the judgment and filed the present appeal against the order. Gourishankar, in his defense stated that he was happily married, but that Anusuya's brother Sadhu who had forced her to almost become a prostitute. He further contended that Anusuya had confessed this part of her life a year before the incident and this had upset him so much that he had fallen ill.

He complained that during the course of his illness his wife had not cared for him at all and had in fact left the house and shifted to her brother's house along with her children. At her brother's place she had continued to earn money by sex work.

This had disgusted Gourishankar but he had kept quiet. He also stated that on the day of the incident when he had gone to the market, he had witnessed a woman being attacked by another person. Out of humanitarian instincts, he had run towards the woman. He had then seen the assailant, Krishna, running away.

But when he came closer he realized that the woman was his wife and that she was dead. He had picked her up and as a result of which his clothes were blood-stained. He further stated that the witnesses had given false evidence since Sadhu and his wife had been responsible for his wife's immoral deals.

Observations of the Court

After discussing the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the Court stated that the Sessions Judge had been right in concluding that it was Gourishankar who had hit his wife and had been responsible for her death.

However, the Court also opined that certain assumptions made by the Sessions Judge based on previous cases, regarding the unsoundness of Gourishankar's mind were not justified. The Court observed that the Sessions Judge had concluded that Gourishankar had an abnormal mind and therefore had indulged in the brutal act of murder.

However, the Sessions Judge had also contended that the exact circumstances that led Gourishankar to commit this murder had not been clearly shown. And because of this reason the Sessions Court opined that the maximum penalty of sentence of death could not be imposed on Gourishankar.

Accordingly, Gourishankar was convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C and was sentenced to imprisonment of life by the Sessions Court. The Court however opined that there had been motive for Gourishankar to commit this act. Even though the reasons were not big enough, they were still sufficient.

The Court also proceeded to show how this case was different from the previous cases referred to by the Sessions Judge in arriving at the above-mentioned conclusion. It was further contended by the Court that the decision taken by the Sessions Court was based on certain assumptions that were not justified (refer to quotes).

It was also held that if a Judge chooses to award life imprisonment instead of death to an individual convicted with murder, then he has to explain the reasons for doing so. And according to the Court, the reasons extended by the Sessions Judge for taking this decision are not completely valid.

Accordingly, the Court held that Gourishankar could not be considered for a sympathetic view. The Court confirmed the order of conviction of Gourishankar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as passed by the Sessions Judge.

However, the Court altered the sentence of imprisonment of life imposed by the Sessions Judge on Gourishankar to death sentence.

Quotes from the Judgment:

"It has not been shown by the prosecution nor has any material been elicited by the accused, to hold that the accused's mind was in any way affected. In the absence of any such circumstance or evidence, we are of the opinion that this inference raised by the learned Sessions Judge that the mind of the accused was far from normal is a speculation and has no reference to the facts of the case. It is undoubtedly true that a man does not commit the murder of his wife unless his mind is agitated. But the agitation of the mind does not necessarily lead to an inference that it had affected his mental capacity so as to lead to an inference that the mind was unhinged or had become unsound."

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • In re Veluchami Thevar (1965) AIR 1965 Mad 48 (V 52): 1965 (1) Cri LJ 148
  • Ram Singh vs. State (1960) AIR 1960 All 748 (V 47): 1960 Cri LJ 1536
  • Alamgir vs. State of Bihar (1959) AIR 1959 SC 436 (v 46): 1959 Cri LJ 527
  • Satya Vir vs. State (1958) AIR 1958 All 746 (V 45): 1958 Cri LJ 1266
  • Vadivelu Thevar: vs. State of Madras (1957) (S) AIR 1957 SC 614 (V 44): 1957 Cri LJ 1000
  • State vs. Airaring (1956) AIR 1956 Bom 231 (V 43): 1956 Cri LJ 496 (2)
  • State vs. Pandurang (1956) AIR 1956 Bom 711 (V 43): 1956 Cri LJ 1306
  • Nag Po Swa vs. Emperor (1936) AIR 1936 Rang 113 (V 23): Cri LJ 435
  • Mitha vs. Emperor (1933) AIR Lah 123 (V 20): Cri LJ 909

Top

Bharat Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan

Filed under: Section 84 of Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Bharat Kumar
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2004 Cri LJ 1958
Court: In Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Shiv Kumar Sharma and FC Bansal

An appeal against the order of the Sessions Court convicting Bharat Kumar for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.

Facts

On the day of the incident, Bharat Kumar took Dinesh and his brother Raju to "Tejaji ka Chabutara" where he tied them with ropes and blindfolded their eyes with a strip of black cloth. Bharat also tied some strips of red cloth on some of the idols and lit incense sticks around them.

Following knifed Dinesh and Raju on their necks. Dinesh succumbed to the injuries. Bharat also injured himself with a knife and a pair of scissors. He claimed his innocence based on a plea of insanity. The Trial Court rejected the plea, convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. Bharat then appealed against the judgment to the High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that with respect to the plea of insanity, the issue was to ascertain whether or not the accused was suffering from mental illness at the time of the incident.

However, it was also pointed out that not every form of madness or insanity was recognized by the law as sufficient cause to be exempted from punishment (refer to Quotes from Judgment). The Court considered the evidence of Bharat's wife who had categorically stated that he was not mentally unsound at the time of occurrence of the incident.

The Court also referred to Raju's (an eyewitness) testimony. Thus; it could not be established conclusively that Bharat was insane at the time he committed the offence.

Held: The Court dismissed the appeal allowing the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court to stand.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Dahyabjai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

Quotes from the Judgment:

"It is not every form of insanity or madness that is recognized by law as a sufficient excuse. All minor aberrations of the mind which are recognized by medical science as amounting to madness are excluded in the eye of law. Even eccentricity or unsoundness of mind of a very minor type is not sufficient. It is not every kind of idle or frantic humour of a man or something unaccountable in his actions, which will show him to be such a mad man so as to be exempted from punishment."

Top

Rustam Ali vs. State

Filed Under: Sections 84, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant: Rustam Ali
Respondent: State
Citation: AIR 1960 Allahabad 333 (V 47 C 72)
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Judges: D.N. Roy and D.P. Uniyal

Rustam Ali had been convicted under Section 302, IPC for the murder of Om Prakash, a four-year-old boy. He filed this appeal against that order.

Facts

Rustam Ali was employed in the Cooper Allen Mills at Kanpur. He lived in one of the quarters in a settlement meant for laborers. One day, when most of the men residing there had gone to the mills, Rustam came out of his quarters armed with a 'gandasa' and attacked Sarju Prasad (who was sitting in front of his house) from behind. Sarju tried to struggle for his safety but he was given several blows with the 'gandasa'.

After this, Rustam attacked Om Prakash, who was sitting on his cot and then he ran and assaulted several other boys. Later he returned to his own house with the bloodstained 'gandasa'. It was here that he was overpowered and arrested by several persons of the locality.

Both Sarju and Om were rushed to the hospital. Om died on the same night. Mushtaq Ali, one of the several people who had arrested Rustam on the day the incident took place, lodged a complaint against Rustam in the Police Station.

The case came up before the Sessions Judge for trial, where it was contended on behalf of Rustam that he was of an unsound mind and was incapable of making his defence. An inquiry was then conducted and the Civil Surgeon of Kanpur kept him under observation. The Civil Surgeon gave evidence that Rustam's power of understanding was poor and he would not be in a position to defend himself.

Therefore, the Sessions Judge postponed the proceedings of the case and Rustam was transferred to the Mental Hospital at Varanasi. The Superintendent of the Hospital later certified that Rustam was in a fit condition to stand trial.

So he was transferred to Kanpur Jail and the case then went to trial. He denied all the allegations made against him. He denied that he had attacked Sarju and Om and that the 'gandasa' had belonged to him. Based on the evidence on record, the Sessions Judge convicted Rustam for murder and sentenced him to death. Rustam filed the present appeal against the order.

Arguments on behalf of Rustam:

Rustam raised the plea of insanity. His claim was that since he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and the fact that what he was doing was contrary to the law, he was protected under section 84, I.P.C.

In order to support this claim, it was contended on Rustam's behalf that he used to beat his wife and lock her up inside their quarters when he would go for work. It was also claimed that he was an eccentric person. He used to raise objections in the factory where he was employed about the quantity of work that was given to him.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that there were certain signs of eccentricity in Rustam such as the quarrel between him and his wife on certain occasions or locking up his wife inside the house and so on. However, the Court opined that such behavior could not be taken as an element to support the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Code.

The Court further alluded to the testimony given by one of the witnesses who had spoken to Rustam just before the incident. He had been passing by her door and she had asked him why he had not gone for work and he had replied by saying that he was on leave. According to the Court this occurrence showed that his condition was not unsound.

After taking into account all the relevant aspects, the Court opined that there was no evidence to show that Rustam Ali was insane either prior to or after the incident (refer to quotes). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Sessions Court sentencing him to death.

Sections Referred:

Sections 84, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases referred:

  • (1848) 3 Car and K 185: 175 ER 514, Reg v. Stokes
  • (1859) I F and F 666: 175 ER 898, Reg v. Haynes

Quotes by the Judge:

"Moody or pensive state of mind, or eccentricity of the type suggested by the prosecution would not amount to proof that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of doing the criminal act and that the unsoundness extended to an extent that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law." (Refer to page 336).

Top