Safe Custody when Mental Illness Proved

Motiram Maroti Dhule vs. State of Maharashtra

Filed under: Sections 84 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code
Sections 330, 335 to 338 and 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Appellant: Motiram Maroti Dhule
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2002 4 Bom LR 323: 2002(3) MHLJ 882
Court: In the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench)
Judges: R.K. Batta and V.M. Kanade

Facts

Motiram Maroti was convicted for murdering Sakharam. According to one of the witnesses, Diwakar Raut, Motiram had allegedly called Sakharam to his house and then a quarrel began between them. Diwakar had heard shouts of a quarrel from Motiram's house and so rushed there. When he reached there, he found Motiram hitting Sakharam's head on a stone due to which he fell unconscious.

Following this, Motiram went inside the house, brought a sickle and dragged the deceased on the road and started hitting him with the sickle. It was also alleged that Motiram thereafter went and sat outside his house with the blood stained sickle and shouted that he could kill two to four more persons if he had an axe or a sword.

Other witnesses, Janabai Dhule, Ramesh Wandale and Sanjaysingh Rajput, corroborated this evidence. Motiram raised a plea of insanity. During the trial, Motiram's brother and father stated that he did not behave normally and he used to stay away from home, abuse people without any reason etc.

Further, though he was married, his wife left him within a few months of marriage due to his abnormal behaviour. They also stated that he was taken to a doctor for treatment but he had burned all the documents.

Motiram, in his statement said that he had suffered a loss in business due to which he lost his mental balance. He added that his wife had deserted him and he was living alone and further, he did not know how the incident took place. The report of the Civil Surgeon showed that he was not of sound mind.

Later, another psychiatrist certified that he could stand the trial. The Trial Court rejected the plea and relied on the account given by the eyewitnesses to the crime and held him guilty of murder. He, then, filed the present appeal.

Arguments on behalf of Motiram

On behalf of Motiram, his lawyer put forward the following arguments in support of the plea of insanity -
  1. His father and brother's evidence on his mental condition established that at the commission of the offence, Motiram did not know the nature of the act and he was incapable of knowing if his actions were wrong or against the law since he was suffering from unsoundness of mind.
  2. It was also pointed out that Motiram did not attempt to conceal the commission of the crime, or try to abscond and even during the trial he was found to be suffering from unsoundness of mind.

Arguments on behalf of the State

The Public Prosecutor argued that -
  1. The evidence of the eye witnesses had established that Motiram had assaulted the deceased with an intention to kill him and was aware of the nature of the act and that what he was doing was wrong and against the law.
  2. No medical evidence had been produced to support the case and that the evidence of the relatives could not be given much credence.
  3. Further, the Civil Surgeon had examined Motiram six months after the incident and the report should not be relied upon especially since he was fit enough to stand the trial.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the facts as narrated by the eyewitnesses showed that the circumstances of the killing and Motiram's behaviour thereafter were not of a normal person. The Court also looked into some of the Supreme Court cases in reference to the present case and it found that the intention to kill was not proved and therefore, Motiram was entitled to benefit of exception under the plea of insanity (refer to quotes).

The Court directed that Motiram should be kept in safe custody until the State Government takes further steps. The State Government was directed to take Motiram to a doctor before taking further steps.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 84 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Sections 330, 335 to 338 and 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974

Cases Referred:

  • Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
  • State of M.P. vs. Ahmadutla, AIR 1961 SC 998
  • T.N. Lakshmaiah vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) SCC 219

Quotes from the Judgment:

"Applying principles of law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of this case including the evidence of eye witnesses to whom we have already made a reference. The defence evidence as also the reports of the Civil Surgeon and the Medical Superintendent of the Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur, we are firmly of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code since the element of mens rea is lacking and the appellant had acted on account of unsoundness of mind."

Top

Janak Raj vs. State of Rajasthan

Filed under: Section 84, 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Janak Raj
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Citation: MANU/RH/0097/2002; Decided on 21.03.200(Unreported)
Court: In the High Court of Rajasthan
Judges: N.N. Mathur and Jagat Singh

An appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting Janak Raj and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 500 for the murder of his six year old son and, for causing grievous injuries to his two other sons.

Facts

The accused, Janak Raj had six children - four sons and two daughters. On the day of the incident, his wife was away at her parent's place. After dinner, the children went to sleep. According to the prosecution, while they were asleep, Janak entered the room and stabbed one of his sons on his stomach with a small sword and then inflicted another injury on his body. Then he injured another son and finally his six-year-old son, Kanu.

One of his injured sons, Dinesh tried to prevent his father from assaulting his brothers but on failing to do so he sought the help of his neighbour. They reached the police station where Janak also appeared with a bleeding Kanu who succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was shock as a result of injuries.

Janak pleaded insanity, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court Convicted him of murder sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs 500. The present petition was filed against this judgment.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that there were several issues that were overlooked by the Trial Court. First, it noted the testimony of a doctor from M.D. Hospital, Jodhpur who testified that Janak had been admitted to the hospital for treatment of schizophrenia, although he could not be sure of the duration of the disorder.

Janak's wife could not say positively as to whether he was suffering from schizophrenia; however, his son testified that he was admitted to the hospital in Jodhpur for treatment of a mental disorder and also that his father loved them and had never assaulted any of them earlier.

Thus no motive could be established for the murder and assaults. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the Court concluded that Janak was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC on the ground that at the time when he murdered his son Kanu, he was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the act.

Held: The appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. The Court further directed that Janak should be detained in safe custody of one of the mental hospitals of the State in accordance with the rules.

Sections Referred:

Sections 84, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code

Cases Referred:

Mst Shanti Devi vs. The State, AIR 1968 Delhi 177

Top

Sau. Saraswati Mahadeo Jadyal vs. the State of Maharshtra

Filed under: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Appellant: Sau. Saraswati Mahadeo Jadyal
Respondent:The State of Maharshtra
Citation: 1994 (3) Bom CR 79
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judges:SP Kurdukar and MF Saldahna

This is an appeal filed by Sarawati Mahadeo against the judgment of the Trial Court that convicted her for murder.

Facts

Saraswati Mahadeo was a resident of a small village and came from extremely poor strata of society. She was married to a labourer who was poor and an alcoholic. She gave birth to a male child and about a week later she strangulated the infant. Thereafter she went to a lonely place and left the body there. Next morning, some of the villagers found the body and they recognized that it was Saraswati’s child.

She was questioned about it and she admitted that she had strangulated the child because her husband was spending all the money on alcohol and was not giving her enough money for the household expenses and for the care of the child. Her explanation was that she had strangled the child out of severe depression.

The police were informed about the incident and Saraswati was arrested. In the course of the investigation, it was also found that she had a history of mental ailment and on an earlier occasion as well, she had killed her own child. At that time she had been produced before the magistrate who had directed to keep her in a mental institution. She had spent about 14 months in the mental institution after which she was discharged.

It was also stated in the records that the Police once again sent her to a mental hospital and the doctors found that she was suffering from schizophrenia. However, the police ignored this aspect and Saraswati was put up for trial under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

At the Trial Court references were made to the fact that she was a mentally disturbed person and therefore a plea of insanity was raised on her behalf. In order to substantiate the plea her lawyer examined the evidence of the doctor who had treated her. The doctor produced medical records of the treatment that had been meted to her. The Trial Judge however, rejected the plea and held that there was no doubt regarding the fact that she had committed the murder of the infant and had tried to destroy the evidence. She was consequently convicted under both charges and was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment.

This appeal was then filed by Saraswati Mahadeo, challenging the judgment.

Arguments made on behalf of Saraswati Mahadeo:

Saraswati’s lawyer examined the evidence given by the doctor who had treated her for mental illness. The doctor had stated that after the delivery of the child, Saraswati developed a condition known as post partum psychosis because of which she became insane. The lawyer also pointed out that there were records to show that Saraswati had stated that it was her husband who had killed the infant. According to the lawyer these accusations made by Saraswati had not been examined.

The lawyer also pointed out that in the course of the investigation it had been discovered that Saraswati was suffering from a mental ailment but no reference had been made to this during her trial. It was contended that because of the mental illness Saraswati had not known the consequences of her actions when she committed the crime. The lawyer also referred to previous relevant cases in order to support his arguments.

Observations of the Court

After examining the evidence, the Court held that Saraswati Mahadeo was of an unsound mind and that her condition was sufficiently serious since she had been retained in a mental institution previously for a period of more than one year. It was also pointed out by the Court that the doctor who had examined Saraswati had made reference to her condition of post partum psychosis. The Court also took into account the fact that Saraswati was living in conditions of extreme poverty, hunger and desperation which could have possibly added to the violence of her act.

The Court stated that the Trial Court had committed an error in passing the judgement. The Court also pointed out that it was the duty of the State to have produced all evidence before the Court especially as it related to Saraswati’s mental condition. The Court held that the conviction be set aside. It was stated that Saraswati would be kept in an appropriate mental hospital and treatment would be given to her. The Court also stated that the Medical authorities would take into account her previous mental history and only when they were satisfied that she had reached a stage where she could live safely and permanently in society would she be discharged. Until then she would continue to stay in the institution.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84,of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 101of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Cases Referred:

  • Machi Parvaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1985 Cri. L.J.1824; R.V.R.G.
  • Dharma Dass vs. State of (AP), 1985 (1) An. L.T. 16, (1985) 1 Crimes 467
  • Andhra Pradesh-Harold Correa vs. State of AP, Cri. App. No. 123 of 1983
  • Sanna Eranna vs. State of Karnataka, 1983 Cri. L.J. 619 (Kant)
  • Keshvarao Bhiosanji Navala vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri. L.J. 403 (Bom.)
  • SW Mohammed vs. State of Maharashtra. 1972 Cri. L.J. 1523, ARI. 1972 SC 2443
  • Jailal v. Delhi Administration, 1969 Cri L.J. 259, ARI 1969 SC 15
  • Shanti Devi vs State, 1968 Cri. L.J.1156, ARI. 1968 Delhi 177
  • Dahyabhai Chhagaubhai Thakkar vs State of Gujrat, 1964 Cri L.J. 472; AIR 1964 SC 1563
  • U Kannan vs. State, 1960 Cri LJ 73, AIR 1960 Ker. 24
  • Oyami Ayatu v. State of MP, 1974 Cri. L.J. 305, AIR 1974 SC 216
  • Ratanlal vs. State of M.P., 1974 Cri. L.J. 654, A.I.R. 1971 SC 778
  • Bhikari vs. State of U.P., 1966 Cri. L.J. 63, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1
  • Kuttappan vs. State of Kerala, 1986 Cri. L.J. 271
  • State of MP vs. Ahmadulla, 1961 (2) Cri L.J. 43, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 998

Top

Unniri Kannan vs. State of Kerala

Filed under: Sections 84 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Unniri Kannan
Respondent:State of Kerala
Citation: AIR 1960 Kerala 24 (V 47 C 8)
Court: In the High Court of Kerala
Judges:K. Sankaran and Anna Chandy

Facts

Unniri Kannan was a 45-year-old unmarried man who lived with his 70-year-old mother. On the day of the incident, Unniri had been away for the better part of the day and returned at about 4 pm. At 7 pm his mother went out to the nearby teashop and purchased a glass of tea, which she then took home. Unniri used to frequently quarrel with his mother over the quality of food she would serve him. At about 7-30 pm on that day, a cousin of Unniri, living in a house nearby, heard a commotion in Unniri’s house.

The cousin heard Unniri’s mother crying out that she was being killed and Unniri replying to this by saying that she deserved something more than killing. On hearing this, the cousin ran towards the house, but when she reached it, Unniri came out and warned that he would kill anyone who came near him. He then went back to the house and closed the door. The old woman continued to cry out and the commotion attracted other neighbors and people walking along the public road nearby.

These people heard the woman pleading with her not to kill her but all of them were frightened to enter the building. After a while, her cries ceased. Then Unniri opened the front door and came out. His clothes were spattered with blood and he walked away toward the north of the house. Those gathered in the front of the house could see the woman lying on the floor.

Thereafter, one local resident, who had gathered at the scene went to the police station and lodged an FIR. The sub-inspector of police along with other constables, rushed to the scene. They found Unniri sitting in the compound on the northern side of the house. He was arrested on the spot. The investigation showed that Unniri had used a number of weapons for inflicting injuries on his mother.

In the statement before the Magistrate, Unniri pleaded ignorance of the whole matter and said that he had not been present in the house at the time of the incident. He further stated that when he had returned to his house that evening he had found his cousin in his house but he does not know when his cousin left the house. He also mentioned that he used to get epileptic fits and he does not remember anything of the incident.

The case then went to the Sessions Judge held that it had been proved beyond doubt that it was Unniri who had inflicted injuries on his mother. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted Unniri for the crime. Unniri then filed the present appeal, on grounds of plea of insanity.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evidence and concluded that there was no doubt that Unniri had inflicted injuries on his mother that led to her death. However, the Court then analyzed whether or not the plea of insanity could be sustained. It took account of the fact that Unniri’s cousin and his aunt’s husband had both stated that Unniri suffered frequently from epileptic fits. The cousin stated that Unniri experienced these fits from the age of 10 or 15 and that these attacks would come once a month or even once a week. He further stated that Unniri would begin to show signs of madness some 24 hours before the actual epileptic seizure.

It was also stated that during such periods Unniri used to abuse his mother and rush out of the house like a mad man. The cousin added that when the epileptic fits would occur, Unniri would fall down unconscious and get up after half an hour completely recovered. The Court also took into account the fact that there was evidence to show that Unniri’s mother had also noticed signs of the approaching epileptic seizure and had told the cousin about it.

The Court then analyzed the meaning of epileptic seizures and noted the features and symptoms of a pre-epileptic insanity. According to the Court, in light of the evidence it was clear that Unniri had assaulted his mother during a period of epileptic insanity and would have certainly not known the nature of the act that he was committing.

The Court also held that the frequent quarrels over food with his mother could not be considered as a motive for crime. The Court also pointed out that Unniri had made no effort to conceal his crime or to escape from the scene of the crime (refer to quotes). Based on these reasons the Court dismissed the decision of the Trial Court in concluding that there was no evidence in the case to sustain the plea of insanity.

Accordingly, the Court held that Unniri Kannan had caused the death of his mother by inflicting injuries on her. However, the Court also stated that Section 84 I.P.C. saved his act from constituting a crime. The Court directed that Unniri be detained in safe custody. Furthermore, the case was to be reported to the State Government for taking further action as necessary.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 84 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code

Quotes from the Judgement:

“The complete absence of motive or provocation, the nature and multiplicity of weapons used, the duration of the attack and the maniacal fury with which the attack was delivered and his subsequent conduct are all indications that the accused was acting under some insane impulse” (page 26)

Top

Prakash vs. State of Maharashtra

Filed under>: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code Section 335(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Appellant: Prakash
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Citation:1985 (91) CRLJ 196
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judges: AD Tated and BA Masodkar

Facts

The entire episode in this case was narrated by an eyewitness, Ramachandra Desai. On the night of the incident, the accused Prakash had gone with Balu Naik to Ramachandra Desai’s house and stayed back for the night at his place. They had gone to sleep on the verandah at about 10.00 pm. At around 11 pm while Prakash and Balu were sleeping on the verandah, Ramachandra had gone to open the door for his daughter and sister-in-law who had returned from a marriage. After some time Prakash complained that he had heard some sound.

Ramachandra informed him that the women folk had just returned and they may be doing something and asked Prakash to go back to sleep. After sometime, Prakash complained about the sound again. He was told once more that there was nothing and that he should sleep. Prakash woke up a third time and complained that he had heard the sound louder than before, and picked up a chair and threw it on the stair case thus breaking it. After this Prakash went inside the room where the women were sleeping, following which Ramachandra heard his daughter shouting out that Prakash was not behaving properly. Ramachandra woke Balu and both went in to check what was happening.

Inside they saw Prakash standing with a plank of the broken chair in one hand and looking at the women in a strange manner. Ramachandra then tried to take the plank from Prakash’s hand but was pushed down. Then Balu tried to take the plank but could not overpower him. In the process, Balu was also hit by Prakash on the head several times with the plank as a result of which, he died. Prakash then ran towards his house. Ramachandra sent his servant to inform Babu Rao, Prakash’s father about the assault. By this time several neighbours had gathered near the house. Ramachandra lodged a complaint the next day.

Prakash took the plea of insanity at the trial. The Trial Court however found him guilty. Against the order of the Trial Court Prakash filed this appeal.

In the appeal, a psychiatrist report showed that he Prakash had been under treatment for a mental disorder for a few months (about two years after the incident). The report also indicated that he had been in a position to comprehend things and therefore, the proceedings continued. In his support, Prakash submitted papers relating to his discharge from work in Jordan two months prior to the incident indicating that he had been discharged because he was mentally troubled.He had been sent to a mental hospital soon after the incident and was under treatment for schizophrenia for 5 months.

The evidences of Prakash’s wife, Mangala and father Babu Rao indicated that seven days prior to the incident, Prakash was behaving strangely and had asked them to get out of the house. He had also beaten his wife badly on the day before the incident for no reason. Further, on the day of the incident Prakash had come back home at 12 in the night and dashed against the door and fallen unconscious. He had gained consciousness next day at 11 a.m and when he had been told that he murdered Balu previous night, he had started crying loudly. They also stated that he had been behaving very differently from 7 days before the incident. Therefore, Babu Rao and his bother had decided to take him to a mental hospital

Observations of the Court

After examining the evidence, the Court observed that it was clear that Prakash was having fits of hallucinations and hearing noises when there were none. Further, the Court observed that Prakash had, prior to the day of the incident, subjected his wife to beating and on the day of the incident itself he left his residential house and went to Ramchandra's place. Thus, it is satisfactorily shown that prior to the day of the incident, Prakash was not keeping good mental health. He was subjected to fits of hallucinations as well as fits of violence which was proved by evidence of several people.

When for the third time he complained that loud sounds were heard, he picked up a huge chair and threw it on the staircase, an act which could not be treated as normal but an act clearly indicating mental disorder. Thus, he was in a frenzy to chase the sounds and started running towards the sounds. Further, it was noted that Prakash was admitted to the mental hospital and treated for about 5 months after his arrest. The doctor has diagnosed him to have suffered from schizophrenia.

Observing that a schizophrenic can commit acts of violence and schizophrenic fits may last for few minutes or few hours, the Court held that Prakash was entitled to the benefit under Section 84 of the I.P.C and therefore set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

However considering the circumstances in which he committed the murder and that he suspected the parentage of his daughter and wife’s character, it appeared that the target might have been his own wife and his own child. Therefore, it was considered unsafe to send him with his relative or friend. Therefore, he was directed, as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to be detained in safe custody in Yeravada Central Prison. Thus the appeal was allowed.

Sections Referred:

  • Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 335(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Top

The State of Maharastra vs. Subhashsing

Filed under: Sections 331 to 333, 335, 378 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Sections 84 & 302 of Indian Penal Code
Appellants: The State of Maharastra
Respondent: Subhashsing
Citation: 1996(1) Bom CR 102
Court: In the    High Court of Bombay
Judges: V.S.Sirpurkar

This is a revision petition filed by the State challenging the order of the Sessions Court acquitting Subhashsing, who was accused of murdering his son, on grounds of insanity.

Facts

Subhasing was tried for murdering his son Sachin. He took the defense of insanity and stated that he was ignorant of the act but also pleaded that he was a ‘lunatic’ when the act was committed and was incapable of knowing the nature and consequences of the act. He did not even know that he really had killed his son. However, Subhashsing was not found to be a ‘lunatic’ at the time of the trial.

The Additional Sessions Judge however held that, when Subhash murdered his son, he was incapacitated because of ‘lunacy’ and therefore, he was given the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted.

Arguments made on behalf of the State

This order of the Trial Court was challenged by the State on the ground that Section 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) had not been followed. According to the Section, when a person was proved insane at the time of committing the offence, the Court was to order his detention in safe custody in the manner the Magistrate thought fit.

Arguments made on behalf of Subhashsing

It was argued on behalf of Subhashsing that Section 335 of Cr.P.C was not a mandatory one and the Court could let off any accused. It was stated that by filing the revision petition, the State was challenging the acquittal of Subhash. Therefore, it was argued that only an appeal and not a revision petition could have been filed by the State.

Observations of the Court

The Court opined that the language used in Section 335 was mandatory in nature and that the Trial Court could not exercise discretion in this matter. Further, it was observed that it was clear from other provisions of the Code that if during the enquiry, a Magistrate had reason to believe that the accused was of unsound mind, he had to first enquire into this aspect, and if he was convinced about the insanity, he had to stop the enquiry and the trial had to be suspended. Further, it was noted that as per law, the person while undergoing trial should be able to understand the nature of charges made against him. It was further stated that the Section also sought to protect the accused from harming himself.

It was further observed that even if the person, on account of being mentally disabled, was not criminally liable, he had nonetheless committed the act amounting to an offence. In instances, where such people were acquitted, it was stated that the Court had to record a finding, revealing whether it would be hazardous to let such a person live in the society unconditionally. There was a chance that in a fit of ‘lunacy’, he/she may repeat the offence or harm himself/herself. Therefore, the Court made note of Section 335, which aims at providing a safety valve so that both society and the accused are safeguarded from the ghastly effects of a possible future recurrence of lunacy.

The Court therefore, held that the Trial Judge should have proceeded with the course directed by Section 335 of the Cr.P.C and should have either ordered Subhashsing to be kept in safe custody or alternatively, he should have handed him over to a relative if such an application was made. The order passed by the Trial Court was therefore set aside.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Provincial Govt vs. Krishna Gopala A.I.R. 1945 Nag 77

Top