PRAKASH NAYI @ SEN Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While acknowledging the hurt that he has caused to Laertes for causing the death of his father, whom he murdered by way of a mistaken identity, Hamlet pleads temporary madness. While pleading so, he disassociates himself from the act as if it was done by a third person and he was made to suffer the consequence. He thus pleads to treat him as a victim rather than an offender. Though the act of Hamlet does constitute a culpable homicide coming within the definition of Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 an act of unsound mind would not attract the same. Through these lines, Shakespeare brings out the agony of a man having to justify his act of madness.

(2.) Raising the plea of insanity on the mandate of Sec. 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'the IPC'), the appellant seeks reversal of the order of conviction passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, confirming the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, S.G. Margao-II. As we are dealing with the seminal issue of applicability of Sec. 84 of the IPC and in the light of the focus made by the counsel for the appellant, we do not propose to go into the merits.

(3.) We have heard Shri Aftab Ali Khan, the counsel appointed from the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sec. 84 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860