STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MANAYYA @ MAHANTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal raises an interesting question with regard to the concept of mens rea, that would be applicable in the case of a person who claims to be of unsound mind and would therefore contend that the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code should be extended. In the instant case, there is conclusive evidence on record that the accused came with an axe and dealt a savage blow to none other than his own brother who is the deceased who in turn died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by PW-1 who is the wife and PW-2 who live given evidence and there is no doubt whatsoever from the record of this case that the accused had caused the death of the deceased. The witnesses themselves who are family members have stated that the accused had been always behaving in an extremely wild and dangerous fashion and according to them it was clear that he was a person of unsound mind. They have also indicated that the accused was treated at the National Institute for mental Health and Neuro Sciences for mental ailment and that he was also under treatment at the Mental Hospital at Hyderabad and furthermore, that he used to go to the doctor for such treatment from time to time. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of this material held that the case is covered by the general exception as prescribed under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused on the ground that being a person of unsound mind even if he has committed a murder, that he cannot be convicted because he was unaware of the consequences of his acts.

(2.) The State has filed the present appeal assailing the correctness of that decision. There is a delay of eighty-four days in the filing of this case and considering the reasons adduced, we have allowed I.A.I. and condoned the delay. Also, since the respondent-accused is unrepresented, the Court had appointed an advocate of sufficient seniority on the criminal side, learned Advocate Hashmath Pasha to argue the appeal on behalf of the respondent- accused. Though the appeal is at the admission stage, it was necessary for us to hear the learned State Public Prosecutor and the respondent's learned Counsel on merits for purposes of deciding I.A.I. and having done so, we propose to dispose of this appeal finally.

(3.) The learned State Public Prosecutor submits that merely because the accused had displayed a history of abnormal behaviour that ipso facto the accused is not entitled to the benefit of any exception under the Indian Penal Code. He has referred to the case law on the point and submitted that the well settled position that is crystallised, postulates that it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court that the accused, who claims the defence of unsoundness of mind was capable of knowing the nature and consequences of the act at the time when the offence was committed. The learned Counsel submits that there are a large number of instances when persons are under treatment for mental ailment or for that matter, they are retained as inmates in Mental Hospitals and are thereafter discharged. What he points out is that once a person is discharged or is out of a Mental Hospital; that the Court would have to proceed on the footing that the mental aliment has been either controlled or cured as otherwise the relations or even the police would ensure that the patient is sent back to the institution. Furthermore, what he submits is that assuming that in a given case, the mental aliment has recurred, that the case law is very clear to the effect that the burden of establishing that the accused was of unsound mind precisely at the point of time when the offence took place shifts to the accused. His submission is that though a general defence of insanity was pleaded in the present case that this is only on the basis of the past history and that there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that at point of time when the offence occurred the accused was of unsound mind. The learned Counsel brings to our notice that it is a matter of record that the accused had been out of the institution for quite some time. There is also an indication that he had been married approximately one year back and that he was very much around the village at the time when the offence took place. The point of law that has been vehemently canvassed before us centers around the question as to whether the burden of proof has been discharged by the accused or not as otherwise the learned Counsel submits that the accused will straight away have to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code because, the record more than conclusively indicates that he was responsible for murdering his brother. We have already indicated that there is no need for us to reproduce the material on record elaborately because, the defence itself had never disputed the fact that the accused had murdered his brother. The limited plea put forward was that irrespective of his having done this, that he cannot be convicted because, this case is covered by the general exception.