National

Psychopath not entitled to claim immunity from criminal acts: court

Legal Correspondent

`A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity'

New Delhi: A psychopath or a person who suffered from unsoundness of mind at some point of time in his life cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution under the `insanity' provision for a crime committed by him after he got cured, the Supreme Court has held.

"Mere abnormality of mind, partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection from criminal prosecution as provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)," said a Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice D.K. Jain confirming the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Bapu alias Gajraj Singh, by the Rajasthan High Court for killing his wife, Govind Kanwar.

Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he/she, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he/she is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

In the instant case the accused chopped off his wife's head with a sickle. During the trial, he claimed that he was insane at the time of committing the crime and that he was entitled to protection contemplated under Section 84 IPC. The trial court rejected the contention and awarded life imprisonment. This was confirmed by the High Court. The present appeal by the accused is directed against this judgment.

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said "Section 84 of the IPC itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied."

Writing the judgment Justice Pasayat said, "Every person, who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused."

The Bench said, "The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section."

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu