DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI V.

STATE OF GUJARAT

Facts

The appellant was the deceased's husband, Kalavati. One night, as they were sleeping
together in their room which was bolted from inside, neighbors around 3 or 3:30 in the
morning heard Kalavati crying for help so they gathered in front of their room and called for
the accused to open the door. When the door opened, they found Kalavati dead with multiple
wounds on her body. Also, the defendant had been sent to trial on a murder charge. Before
the extra-time judge, lawyers for the accused were appointed as he was insane at the time and
could not understand the nature of his action. The judge considered all the evidence before
him and concluded that the defendant had failed to prove that at the time of the murder of his
wife he could not understand the nature of the crime and that what he was doing might be
wrong or illegal. Rejecting his request for insanity, a learned additional session’s judge
convicted him under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life in prison. In the appeal
the high court agreed with the findings and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the
accused. The current appeal is therefore filed with the Supreme Court.

Issues

What are the various evaluations under Section 84 (insanity) of IPC?

Rules

Section 299--Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.

Section 84--Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is
doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
302. Punishment for murder.—whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Analysis

Justice Subba Rao stated the following propositions for the doctrine of burden of proof in the
context of plea of insanity:-

1. The prosecutor must prove beyond any doubt that the defendant committed the
offense for the necessary reasons; and the responsibility to prove that it remains in the
prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial: As stated in section 299 of the
IPC, in the event of a homicide, the prosecutor will prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant committed murder in good faith.

After considering the facts of the case, it was stated that the motive for the plaintiff's
murderous death was that he did not love his wife and not because he was insane.
Although he was employed in Ahmedabad and lived there for about ten months, he
did not go with his wife and wrote a letter to his grandfather saying he did not love his
wife and should take her to him.

2. Section 84 of the IPC provides that in dealing with insanity the following principles
should be kept in mind

• The absurdity proposed by this section states that in order for something to be legal
it is necessary to prove that he or she does not know what to do or what to do with his
or her action.

• The court will consider the absence of madness

3. In order to gain the benefit of section 84, the IPC respondent must establish any
ground, required under this section, to be unable to know (1) the nature of the act or
(2) that the act was unlawful or (3) that it was wrong.
 In the current situation, the amount of beating with the knife he gave her reflects his
feelings of revenge or his determination that the victim cannot escape and not because
he is insane which cannot be assumed that a person does not count their lashes when
they kill a person. Also, after the incident, police described the suspects' state of
complete recovery. And witnesses in their statements before the police pointed out a
clear motive for the suspects' murder but before the court they said the accused was
insane at the time of the murder and therefore the court could not rely on their
statements.

4. The above conditions and the facts of the case therefore prove that the respondent
did not have the power to go mad before, during or after the incident. Therefore, the
court dismissed the appeal.

Analysis & Outcomes

The law undoubtedly assumes that every perpetrator is reasonably prudent and
responsible for his or her actions, though in some cases they can be disputed. The
doctrine of the bearing of evidence in the context of the petition of madness was
stated as follows in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, (1964) 7
SCR 361:

“(1) The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has
committed the offense with the necessary consent, and the burden of proof that the
prosecution has always borne it from the beginning to the end of the trial.

(2) There is an irrefutable argument that the defendant was unreasonable, in

(3) Even if the defendant could not clearly prove that he or she was insane at the time
of the crime, the evidence presented before the court by the defendant or prosecutor
may raise reasonable doubts in the court's mind as to one or more elements of the
case, including the defendant's methods. The burden of general prosecuted evidence
has not been released. ”
11. Section 84 of the IPC stipulates otherwise that an act shall not be an offense, if
committed by a person, who at the time of doing the same, due to mental retardation,
is unable to know the nature of the act, or what he is doing may be wrong or illegal.
But the church facing the defendant, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, has no
objection to prosecuting its founding without any reasonable doubt.

Defendant must prove his defense that something might have happened, as noted in
Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 8 495, after which the burden
will be passed on to the prosecutor to determine the merits of the alternative.
However, not all and insufficient psychological appeal will suffice. The standard of
testing to be used will be legal madness and not medical madness, as seen in State of
Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, as follows:

“19. In some cases, a person is diagnosed with a mental disorder or mental

4. The critical period of time for consideration of an application for mental health
protection should be in relation to the respondent's attitude when the case is being
combined with evidence of pre-existing conduct, attending and following a crime as
indicated in Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 533, as follows:

“2. It has now been well established that the point of the critical period in which the
mind must be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the
burden of proof of this contact of the defendant. In D. Thakker v. The State of Gujarat
was stated that “there is an undisputed view that the defendant was unreasonable, in
making this case, in the sense set out in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the
defendant could deny that the Court brought all relevant evidence - verbal, written or
indirect. The evidence against him is no higher than that of the party in civil cases”.

5. If in writing, there is a reasonable doubt in the Court's mind about the defendant's
attitude at the time of the incident, he or she shall be entitled to a reasonable doubt
and subsequent dismissal. , as seen in Vijaye Singh vs. State of UP, (1990) 3 SCC
190.
 6. We will now look at the adequacy of other medical and defense evidence to assess
whether there are reasonable doubts about the status of the complainant at the time of
the outbreak of a potential risk attack, coupled with a complete lack of consideration
of PW14 evidence. It is because the injured witness, who could not be formally
identified as an interested witness for obvious reasons, may have said that the
petitioner was unreasonable, unable to relax the main prosecution's task of
prosecuting without reasonable doubt as to why the suspect's incomprehensible
pleading was not justified.

CONCLUSION

The accused killed his wife and wife by stabbing her with 44 knives in her body. The
suspects raised an appeal of madness in the first court. The trial court failed to disprove the
fact that the statements made to the police immediately after the incident did not appear to be
insane. This conviction was upheld by the high court. The suspects appealed to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court also upheld the conviction of the defendant and imposed certain
conditions on the defendant's right to defend himself under this rule. It stated that in
determining whether the defendant had instituted his case under the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
s. 84, ‘the court should consider the circumstances that preceded, followed and followed the
crime. The critical time frame for determining a suspect's attitude is the time in which the
offense is committed. The relevant facts are the motive for the crime, the previous history of
the suspect's attitude, his state of mind during the trial, and the events that took place
immediately after the incident that illuminated his mental state '.