DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:
Critical Analysis of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code,1860

SUBJECT:
Indian Penal Code

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda
Ms. V.Vijaya Lakshmi

Name of the Candidate: Vijay Srinivas K

Roll No.: 2018LLB095
Semester: 4th semester
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my respected sir Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani
Prasad Panda, and Ms V. Vijay Lakshmi ma’am for giving me a golden opportunity to take
up this project regarding ‘Critical Analysis of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860’ and
sincere thanks for the continuous support of my study and related research, for her patience,
motivation, and immense knowledge. Her guidance helped me in all the time of research. I
could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my research.
ABSTRACT:

Insanity defence is primarily used in criminal prosecutions. It is based on the assumption that
at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore,
was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong
behaviour, hence making them not legally accountable for crime. Insanity defence is a legal
concept, not a medical one. This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not
sufficient to prove insanity. The defendant has the burden of proving the defence of insanity
by a preponderance of the evidence which is similar to a civil case. It is hard to determine
legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court. This article focuses on the
recent Supreme Court decision on insanity defence and standards employed in Indian court.
Researchers present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental status examination and
briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity defence
evaluations. Section 84 of Indian Penal code is the primary legislation dealing with the
criminal responsibility of mentally ill persons in India. This law is based on M’Naghten
Rules enacted in England. In this paper an attempt has been made to discuss this section, its
scope and it’s applicability in detail.

SYNOPSIS:

INTRODUCTION:

The concept of responsibility connects with our most fundamental convictions about human
nature and dignity and everyday experience of guilt and innocence and blame and
punishment. Punishing a person, who is not responsible for the crime, is a violation of the
basic human rights and fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. It also brings the
due process of law, if that person is not in a position to defend himself in the court of law,
evoking the principle of natural justice. The affirmative defence of legal insanity applies to
this fundamental principle by excusing those mentally disordered offenders whose disorder
deprived them of rational understanding of their conduct at the time of the crime. Hence, it is
generally admitted that incapacity to commit crimes exempts the individual from punishment.
This is recognized by the legislation of most of the civilized nations. Even in India, Section
84 of Indian Penal Code deals with the act of a person of unsound mind and discusses
insanity defence.
LITERATURE REVIEW:

In this paper I have studied texts from various journals, books and websites and have
compiled it all into this research paper.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1) What is the meaning of unsoundness of mind in section 84 of IPC?

2) To what extent can this section of IPC be pleaded as a defence?

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

1) To understand the meaning of the provisions under section 84 of IPC.

2) To understand and test the applicability of this section in law today or to what extent it can
be used as a defence.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

1) To understand the importance of the provision of section 84 of IPC.

2) To understand the extent of applicability of this provision.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The nature or method of this legal study includes:

1) Descriptive Study

2) Exploratory Study

3) Explanatory Study

4) Analytical Study

5) Comparative Study

PRIMARY SOURCES:

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Section of 84, IPC: An Analysis,Dr. Prateek Rastogi , JIAFM, 2006

 Math SB, Kumar CN, Moirangthem S. Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and
Future. Indian J Psychol Med. 2015;37(4):381–387. doi:10.4103/0253-7176.168559
  Defence of Insanity in Indian Criminal Law, K. M. Sharma, Journal of the Indian Law
Institute, Vol. 7, No. 4 , Indian Law Institute, (OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1965), pp.
325-383, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43949854, 16-04-2019 05:33 UTC

SECONDARY SOURCES:
 http://medind.nic.in/jal/t06/i4/jalt06i4p180.pdf
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43949854.pdf?refreqid=excelsior
%3A0d47951e05f589d442957c1abcb43be3
 http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.pdf
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676201/
 http://www.ijemr.net/DOC/
DefenceOfInsanityUnderIndianLegalSystemAnAnalysis.PDF
 https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-mnaghten-rule/

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

This project mainly focuses on the following aspects:

1) To understand the exact meaning and the various interpretations of Section 84 of IPC.

2) To understand the different ways and the extent to which this section can be pleaded as a
defence under law by the accused.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

 INTRODUCTION
 SECTION 84 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
 Unsoundness of mind
 Unsoundness of mind should exist at the time of the act
 Nature of the Act
 TEST FOR INSANITY- THE M’NAGHTEN RULE
 SPECIFIC PROCEDURE FOR PERSONS WITH MENTAL INSANITY
ACCORDING TO THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 BURDEN OF PROOF
 CONCLUSION
 CASE HEAD NOTE
 CASE DIGEST
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION:

In law responsibility is the liability to punish. This concept of responsibility is the

fundamental basis from where we derive our rights and duties to live life as free men and
women who are accountable for our actions. It forms the basis of all criminal codes and
statues which define our rights and also give us appropriate punishments for our breach of
rights. However, a person can only be punished if he has done a certain act with his complete
consent and his free wish and will. For a criminal act to be considered criminal as against a
person , that said person should have a motive or mens rea to be held accountable for his act.
A mere commission of a said act does not make that person guilty or accountable for that act.

Therefore the law recognizes the concept of "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" and
"amens ne sine mente" i.e., the physical act alone does not make a person guilty and instead
the mental component in the form of evil intent or guilty mind is equally important.1

This is a plea taken by the defence to save their client from extreme punishment like capital
punishment or death penalty in order and stems from the fact that the law considers a person
of sane mind when they have attained a certain age and this bestows on them a certain kind of
thinking to reason out their acts and differentiate between right and wrong. This stage of
mind makes them responsible and gives them a sufficient degree of understanding and
knowledge to be accountable for their criminal acts and such a person can only be convicted
of this said criminal act only when he is able to convince the court to the maximum
satisfaction that the contrary has occurred and he was not in the said state of mind or did not
posses that kind of thinking or knowledge to understand and differentiate the difference
between the right and wrong at the time of committing a crime and hence is not responsible
for the criminal act that has occurred as it was not done by his free will and consent and
instead out of other circumstances”.2

“A mentally ill person is not punished for his crime, as he is devoid of free will, intelligence
and knowledge of the act.”3 Thus “burden of proving this unsoundness of mind entirely lies
on the defence.”4 The prosecution however has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt
the failure of which would lead to the acquittal of the accused. If the case is not proved

1
Wahab A. The concept of criminal responsibility. Journal of Karnataka medicolegal society, 2003; 11(2)
2
Section of 84, IPC: An Analysis,Dr. Prateek Rastogi , JIAFM, 2006
3
Subrahmanyam BV. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. 22nd ed, New Delhi: Butterworths India;
1999. p. 663-669.
4
GaurSN. Lyon's medical Jurisprudence' for India. io" ed. Allahabad: Law Publishers India Pvt Ltd; 1988. pg.
489-492.
beyond reasonable doubt then the plea of insanity would not be entertained as there is no
need to so. If case can’t be proved then the accused is to be lawfully acquitted. If it is proved
by the defence that the accused was of unsound mind while committing the said offence then
the responsibility or guilt of the accused diminishes. Depending upon the condition of the
accused at the time of commission of offence and the nature of the offence then the accused
is said to be acquitted or sent to prison or to a psychiatric hospital to be treated and kept at
safe custody. The concept from where this provision stems is that the accused was not at the
state of mind and that he was committing the said act unintentionally and involuntarily and
not out of free will and consent and hence should not be punished and . Also he should not be
punished as he has received his punishment by nature herself.

This provision however can be used in for the wrong reasons and can prove to be dangerous
and fatal to the law and justice systems as it can be used as an easy plea by the defence and
criminals in order to escape capital punishment. So there should be a proper system to
understand this concept of insanity to prevent its wrong use, to protect law and justice and to
differentiate between a true plea of insanity and a false or fabricated plea of insanity. The
society also must act responsibly on the other hand to protect these mentally ill persons from
wrong attacks which would worsen their condition.

For this very reason, we should possess an in depth understanding of the subject and should
be aware of the rights and responsibilities of the mentally ill people in criminal matters.
Hence a clear understand of the law is very important to deal with these cases. This plea of
insanity or mental illness is provided in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This
subject deals with various issues and deals with important questions of law such as; are
mentally ill persons acquitted of any crime they commit, what is the nature of mental illness
required to acquit such an accused person, what is the difference or borderline between sanity
and insanity, what are the provisions if any for punishing such mentally ill persons, if there
are any provisions to protect or safeguard mentally ill persons from abuse from the society
and what is the difference between lawful insanity and medical insanity and which of these
are to be considered while punishing a mentally ill person. The section 84 of the IPC deals
with the act of a person with unsound mind.
SECTION 84 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860:

According to Section 84 of IPC,

“Act of a person of unsound mind.—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.”5

“To be acquitted or exempted through this section a mere plea of insanity if not sufficient. It
has to be proved to the highest possible extent that unsoundness of mind existed at the time of
the offence and this unsoundness was of such a high degree that it rendered him incapable of
knowing the nature of the act and that even if he knew that the act was wrong ,he did not
know that he was wrong or against the law.”6

Unsoundness of Mind:

In this section unsoundness of mind is used only to describe those conditions which affect the
cognitive ability of a person or individual i.e., every person who is mentally ill is not devoid
of punishment. The law in this section distinguishes the difference between medical and legal
insanity. A person is called medically insane if he is suffering from any disease or disorder of
mind. Medical insanity means the person's consciousness of the bearing of his acts on those
affected by it and by legal insanity is meant the person's consciousness in relation to himself. 7
“Section 84 uses the expression unsoundness of mind to include insanity, madness or lunacy
for the definition of each of these may differ in degree and kind. These terms are often used
synonymously, but precise definitions are hard to come by. Whether the unsoundness of mind
is temporary or permanent, natural or supervening, whether it arises from disease, or exists
from the time of birth, it is included in this expression. Thus an idiot, a person non compos
mentis by sickness, a lunatic who has lucid intervals of reason, a person naturally mad or
delirious, and one whose reason is clouded by alcohol, all are persons of unsound mind,
provided that their unsoundness makes them oblivious to the nature and criminality their
unsoundness must reach that degree which the latter part of this section requires.”8 Conditions

5
Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860
6
Section of 84, IPC: An Analysis,Dr. Prateek Rastogi , JIAFM, 2006
7
Chandrachud YV. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's The Indian Penal Code. 28thed. Agra: Wadhwa & Company Law
Publishers; 2001. p. 87-96.
8
Defence of Insanity in Indian Criminal Law, K. M. Sharma, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 7, No.
4 , Indian Law Institute, (OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1965), pp. 325-383,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43949854, 16-04-2019 05:33 UTC
like emotions, fear, hatred, jealousy, revenge, anger, perversions, and lack of self control may
be termed as features of insanity in medical term. In some of these situations person might
become a subject to be admitted in a mental hospital. 9 These aspects of insanity are however
not considered in the eyes of the law. Law only considers those aspects of insanity which
deals with the cognitive faculties of mind. There can be no legal insanity unless cognitive
faculties of the mind are, as a result of unsoundness of mind are so affected as to render the
offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or knowing that what he is doing is
wrong or contrary to law. For the purpose of criminal law emphasis is therefore on the degree
of unsoundness of mind. If a person is acting under effect of delusions and delusions are such
that they impair his cognition then he is not liable. “Section 84 of IPC consists of two mental
conditions which exempt a man from a responsibility for his crime and they are:

 That his unsoundness of mind was such that he was incapable of knowing the nature
of the act.
 That it had precluded him from understanding that the act he was doing was
wrongful.”10

“The former refers to the consciousness of the accused while committing the act and the
bearing of the act on the victims affected by the said act whereas the latter refers to the
consciousness of its relation to himself. Circumstances or situations such as simple
ignorance, mistake, unwarranted childishness, automatism, etc. can occur only when
gross confusional states occur which are covered in the former or first category whereas
the second category refers to the mental disease which only partially extinguishes reason.
The latter category is usually of more significance as it is usually used to test of
unsoundness in most cases. “11

The Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. The King tried to formulate
test for insanity. Ashiruddin Ahmed, the accused was according to his version of the case,
commanded by someone in paradise in his dream to sacrifice his own five year old son.
The following morning he killed his son by thrusting a knife through his throat and
thereby killed his son. He then told the entire story to a chaukidhar whom he met, when

9
Knight B et al. Cox, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. 6th ed. Allahabad: The law Book Company
p.vtLtd; 1990. p. 516-519
10
Rustam Ali v. State , A.I.R. 1960 All. 333.
11
The Indian Law Institute, Essays on the Indian Penal Code 76 (1962)
 he went to meet his uncle. The court then held that to avail a right or remedy under
“section 84 of the IPC, the accused should establish any one of the following elements:

 That the nature of the act was not known to the deceased, or
 That the act was not known by him to be contrary to the law, or
 That the act was not known to be wrong to him.”12

The court later on acquitted the accused as his lawyer was able to establish the third point. He
believed that his dream was a reality and hence it was said that the accused was of unsound
mind and that he was acting under the delusion that of his dream and made the sacrifice
believing it to be right. Subsequently this test was however not accepted as it would lead to
serious consequence sin the future such as an accused will be privileged to plead the same
above circumstances in every case, the court’s interpretation of what was wrong or what was
contrary to the law are two independent issues to be dealt with separately and thirdly the
section 84 of the IPC says that the accused should be incapable of knowing whether the said
act committed by him was right or wrong. The judge who was part of the Allahabad bench in
a certain case while criticizing the Calcutta bench judgement for testing said that, “the
capacity to know a thing is quite different from what a person knows. The former is a
potentiality; the latter is the result of it. If a person possesses the former, he cannot be
protected in law, whatever might be the result of his potentiality. In other words, what is
protected is an inherent or organic incapacity, and not a wrong or erroneous belief which
might be the result of a perverted potential.”13

It was held that the beliefs of an accused can hardly protect him when it is proved that he
could distinguish the difference between right and wrong. Later on the true test of insanity
and the ability to decide was held to be the M’Naghten Rule which was accepted by all the
other high courts subsequently.

Not every form of mental derangement or any deviation from normal conduct of behaviour
would confer immunity upon a person from the criminal act. There is no such difference or
various kinds of insanities but only the various degrees of difference are seen between a
normal and mentally ill person. The degree of disease or disturbance of the mind should be so
high that it would obliterate perceptual or volitional capacity. The most important factor in
governing human life is the cognitive phase of mental life. Therefore exemption from liability
12
Ashiruddin Ahmed v. The King (1897)
13
Lakshmi v. State, A.I.R. 1959 All. 534.
is confined to cases where insanity materially impairs the cognitive faculties of the accused.
The law recognizes incapacity to realize the nature of the act, and presumes that where a
man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently unclouded to apprehend what he is
doing he must always be presumed to intend the consequences of the act.14

As noted above every mentally ill person is not ipso facto said to be exempted from criminal
liability as the legal and medical definition of insanity differ from each other. 15 The courts in
India are only concerned about whether the legal test of insanity has been met or not. The
distinction between the medical and legal view of insanity are important to be considered.
The medical and the legal standards of sanity are not identical. “From the medical point of
view, it is probably correct to say that every man at the time of committing the criminal act is
insane”16, that is, he is not in a sound, healthy, normal condition and, therefore, needs
treatment.” But from the legal point of view, a man must be held to be sane so long as he is
able to distinguish between right and wrong, so long as he knows that the act done is wrong
or contrary to the law. “17 To plead this defence of insanity successfully the referred mental
condition must exist at the time when the act was committed.

In the well-known Bombay case, Queen-Empress v. Lakshman Dagdu, in the accused

brutally killed his young children with a hatchet. He had shown no previous symptoms of
insanity. The reason he ascribed for the crime was that he was ill with fever, and the cry of
the children vexed him. After killing them he went to sleep. It was alleged that the fever had
made him irritable and sensitive to sound, but it did not appear that he was delirious at the
time of perpetrating the crime. His manner was quiet when he was questioned and there was
no attempt at concealment. He made a full confession of his guilt but had shown no signs of
sorrow or remorse. It was held that as the accused was conscious of the nature of his act, he
must be presumed to have been conscious of its criminality. He was, therefore, held guilty of
murder.18 However, if we judge the above case from a medical point of view then due to the
lack of premeditation, the idea having occurred suddenly and the lack of precautions would
not establish the medical insanity of this person. This case was however sent for medical and
governmental enquiry subsequently as it was only concentrated on judicial principles of law.

14
Mani Ram v. Emperor , A.I.R. 1927
15
Barelal v. State, A.I.R. 1960 MP 102
16
Ram Adhin v. Empror
17
Hagroo v. State, A.I.R. 1953 Nag. 255, 256
18
Queen-Empress v. Lakshman Dagdu
In the next case of Chajju vs. Emperor, the medical evidence, given by gentlemen of
professional eminence and unimpeachable veracity was distinctly in favour of the accused.
Their evidence disclosed that the accused must have been insane because he was a man of
high character, that he was suffering from debility and that in all probability he committed
this very extraordinary and wholly motiveless crime in a fit of melancholia.19

To common man the very essence of insanity are delusions and hallucinations. These
delusions are in simple terms facts which arise from false beliefs of incorrigible beliefs.
These facts seem so delusionally true to a person that he beliefs them and then commits an
act without understanding the consequences thereof. These acts may be irrational and
inappropriate to common man but to the person who is delusional they seem to be very much
devoid of any rational arguments. These delusions may be caused due to jealousy, infidelity,
depression, etc. The courts in India have faced interesting cases facing such situations where
the whole experience is comprised of emotional tension leading to conviction of the reality of
belief.

In India where women are faced with many sex taboos have a lot of prejudices against them
and are hence a huge importance is given to the virginity and fidelity of women. This is the
main reason why many cases that comprise of infidelity arise in India. In the case of
Muhammad Husain v. Emperor the accused killed his wife because he had found her with his
father in an illicit relationship. The evidence on behalf of the accused proved that for about
three or three-and-half years before the occurrence of the crime the accused had suffered
from intervals of fits and mental unsoundness in the course of which he was subjected to
delusions. The Oudh Chief Court regarded the accused allegation as obviously untrue as the
father was seventy or seventy-five years old and the wife was eight months advanced in
pregnancy. The court held that he had killed her under the influence of a delusion which had
produced in his mind, an incorrigible belief that the woman had been guilty of adulterous and
unchaste conduct but this delusion did not prevent him from understanding the nature and
characteristics of his act. The accused conduct was instead that of a man who believed that in
killing his wife he had committed something morally justifiable and right according to the
society even though the law might see fit to punish him. The court therefore convicted him. 20
The Punjab High Court in a recent case of Hazara Singh vs. The State 21 dealt with a situation
involving delusion of infidelity. The frequent visits of the deceased to her brother-in-law
19
Chajju v. Emperor (1920)
20
Muhammad Husain v. Emperor (1895)
21
Hazara Singh v. The State (1958)
created in the accused mind an indelible impression that his wife was involved in an
adulterous intimate relationship with the latter. Due to this strong delusion of unfaithfulness
on his wife, he had been in the habit of mercilessly beating and maltreating and abusing his
wife. The worry over the character of his wife took shape this form of a kind of temporary
insanity. Being highly disturbed by the thoughts of the unchaste character of his wife on the
night of the occurrence of the crime, the accused killed her by throwing nitric acid on her.
The medical evidence showed that he was capable of knowing what he was doing and had
ordinary concept of right and wrong. The accused was, therefore, held guilty of murder but
the court thought fit to reduce the death sentence to imprisonment.

Cases involving delusions of jealousy are also very common to India. In a case of Dil Gazi
vs. Emperor the accused, who bore a delusion in his mind that his wife would either elope or
be taken away by some men from the army and hence cut her throat without any rational
motive. He made no attempt to escape from his act. The evidence showed that before the
commission of the crime he had suffered from a failure of reasoning powers and his delusions
as to dangers which threatened his wife. His climbing a tree in search of his pillows indicated
a state of mind resembling that generally described as idiocy. The court regarded these facts
as proving unsoundness of mind which prevented the accused from knowing the nature of his
act, and that it was wrong or contrary to the law.

Cases of human sacrifice and murder owing to religious superstitious beliefs also cause
delusions in a man’s mind. In Queen vs. Bishendharee Kahar the accused sacrificed his son to
the god Mahadeo, in pursuance of a vow that if the son were born he would sacrifice Ganges
water, and did pooja because wealth had not accompanied the son's birth and later on cut his
own throat as a protest to his deity’s injustice. He believed that his son would come back to
life in three days. He was otherwise perfectly sane, and repudiated all suggestions as to his
insanity. It was held that he could not but be convicted of murder, though his act may have
been prompted to some extent by his religious enthusiasm. 22 In a similar case of
Narayanswaymy Goundan a poojari of the Mariamman Temple on singling for the purpose of
praising the goddess and to cure the child of smallpox, took the child and carried the five
month old infant and whirled the child around and caused his death in the course of
sacrificing him. The defence taken was that the priest was not in his senses and was acting in
the sense of an inspired priest. It was found that prior and after the commencement of the act

22
Queen v. Bishendharee Kahar (1867)
the priest was found to be completely sane and not out of his mind or sane and hence he was
not within the meaning of section 84 of IPC.

Schizophrenia is an abnormality causing a manner of split personality in a person. A person

suffering from this type of insanity loses contact with his environment. Schizophrenia is
typically the effect of continuously developing problems of non adjustment with the
immediate environment of the individual thus showing signs of a marked childishness of
behaviour with a great amount of unwarranted smiling, giggling, odd mannerings, gesturing,
and incoherent speech and thought. In the case of Onkar Dutt vs. Emperor, the accused was a
patient suffering from Heberphrenia which was a type of Schizophrenia. The accused in this
case committed a murder of a person who was pleaded as a stranger to him. It was pleaded
that this person was suffering from Schizophrenia and evidence supporting that statement was
also produced before the court. The court held that this person since he was suffering from
Schizophrenia did not understand the nature of the act committed and was incapable of
comprehending the said problem and therefore the accused was acquitted on these grounds.

Another case of insanity is Epileptic insanity which is rather rare in nature as related to other
cases of insanity. An epileptic in a normal sense can’t always take this defence of insanity
against any crime committed by him but the when the epileptic fits are common and frequent
in nature then this defence of epileptic insanity can be pleaded. A person who suffers from
epilepsy is liable during a period of lapse from consciousness to act without volition and has
no recollection whatever of these acts when consciousness returns. This condition, known as
post-epileptic automatism, has definite medico-legal bearing inasmuch as, during lapse from
consciousness, crimes may be committed by persons suffering from epilepsy. To exonerate
the epileptic it is necessary to show that he was suffering from an epileptic seizure at the time
when he committed the offence. “In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, the Supreme
Court negatived the accused contention that he was suffering from epileptic seizure at the
time when he committed the murder because of the following reasons:

(a) The accused bore ill-will towards the deceased.

(b) The act was committed at dead of night when accused would not be seen committing the
act.

(c) The accused had carefully planned the act taking a torch with him and obtaining access to
the house by stealthily scaling over a wall.
(d) After the act of killing, the accused was found in a mood of exaltation.”23

Unsoundness should exist at the time of the crime:

“Another requirement under law is that this unsoundness of mind should exist at the time of
commission of the act. It is only the presence of insanity at the time of the act which matters
and not before or after that. If insanity exists at the time of trial it can only lead to
postponement of trial but not to acquittal of the accused. An accused a young boy was
'brought up by his grandfather and studied abroad. His parents did not care about him; even
his grandfather's death was not communicated to him. On coming to India he committed
brutal offences' at random. During pendency of trial he completed studies and started his own
business. His behaviour was normal before and after the offence. But he was held insane
while committing the offence and was acquitted.”24

The use of the term ‘unsoundness of mind’ in section 84 of IPC has been advantageous as it
has made the job of the court and lawyers easy since the terms insanity, idiocy, mental
illness, madness, hallucinations, epilepsy, schizophrenia, post natal and pre natal mental
problems, etc., all fall within the scope of unsoundness of mind and a separate definition is
not required. More importance is laid on the time of the incident and the state of mind during
the time of the incident. The question regarding time is to be decided mainly upon the merits
and facts of the case where the burden of proof lies on the defendant or the person taking the
plea or exemption under section 84 of IPC.

In the famous case of Rattan Lal vs. State of M.P 25 the court held that the important point of
time during which the fact of unsoundness of mind should be proved and established is
whether the time, when the crime is actually committed and whether the accused was in such
a state of mind as to be entitled or attain the benefit under section 84 of IPC can only be
rightly proved to be established from the circumstances which preceded, attend and followed
the crime. In simpler words, it is behaviour which was prior, during and after the commission
of the event which may be relevant in ascertaining the mental condition of the accused at the
time of commission of offence but not those remote in time.26

23
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla , SC, A.I.R., 1961
24
Section of 84, IPC: An Analysis,Dr. Prateek Rastogi , JIAFM, 2006
25
Rattan Lal v State of MP, AIR 1971 SC 778
26
Umuru Santa v. State, Cut.L.T. Vol. 48, 1979, p. 576
In another famous case of Kamala Bhuniya v. State of West Bengal, the accused was being
tried for murdering her husband by using an axe. Consequently, a suit was filed against the
wife or the accused and in defence of which she had alleged to be insane during time of the
incident. The Investigating Officer at initial or starting stage recorded or noted down about
the mental insanity of the accused wife. The main duty or work of the prosecution was to
organize for a medical examination of the accused wife. It was later on held by the court that
there was a no motive or lack of motive for the murder. The accused wife also made no
attempt to abscond or run away and nor did she make any attempt to remove the murder
weapon. The failure on the part of the prosecution was that it did not discharge its initial
stand regarding the presence of guilty mind or mens rea in accused at time of commission of
offence. The accused was therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. Hence the
accused wife was proved insane during or at the time of commission of the offence and was
held guilty of Culpable Homicide and not of Murder.

Nature of the Act:

If accused did not know the nature of the act he was committing then he is not responsible for
it. Similarly, if he knew the nature of the act but did not know whether it was wrong or
contrary to the law he is not liable. On the other hand if the person did not know the nature of
the act but knew that it is wrong as contrary to law he is held responsible. If the evidence
shows that the accused was conscious of the nature, of the act, he must be presumed to have
been conscious of its criminality. According to Stephan if a person cuts off the head of a
sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up he is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act and is therefore not liable. When an accused
sacrificed his son in a mosque on being commanded in dream to do so, it was held that
though he knew the nature of the act but did not know that it was wrong so was given benefit.
On the other hand a father sacrificed his only four-year old son to please the deity. They were
held liable as the court said that such barbaric actions don't prove instantly. When an accused
attempted to kill his wife and mother-in-law, and did killed his brother' in law and
subsequently set fire to the house. Although he was of unsound mind but as he was conscious
about nature of the act he was convicted.' If a person thinks another man to be a wild boar
and kills him .he is exempted from criminal responsibility, as he does not know the nature of
the act. If he kills a child, under an insane delusion that by doing, he is saving him from sin
and sending him to heaven, he knows the nature of the act but he is incapable of
understanding that what he is doing is morally wrong. A person killed his four relatives and
started running away. Later he volunteered this information, there was no motive, no
accomplice and no attempts to secrecy but then also he was convicted, as legally he was sane.
He knew the nature of his act as well as consequences. In such cases, burden of proof lies on
the accused to prove his insanity. But in some cases things speak for themselves. When an
accused killed his son and then danced around, moving towards his house and threatening
others, here facts themselves proved the care and accused was ordered to be detained in
mental hospital.”27

TEST FOR INSANITY- THE M’NAUGHTEN RULE:

The M'Naghten case marks a culmination in the development of the law of insanity in
England which had hitherto presented a bewildering picture of confusion. “Daniel M'Naghten
was a paranoiac who believed himself to be persecuted by the Tories and to have been
goaded beyond endurance to commit the alleged murder. Suffering from delusions of
persecution, M'Naghten had determined to kill Sir Robert Peel but shot and killed Edward
Drummond, by mistake. He was tried, and acquitted on the ground of insanity. His acquittal
evoked a public clamour. Many people believed that his story of delusion was a concoction,
and that the murder was a pure political assassination. A debate ensued in the House of Lords
with a view to strengthening the law.” 28And it was induced to employ the unusual procedure
of addressing a series of questions to the fifteen judges of England to ascertain the law on the
subject. There are a total of four M’Naghten rules and these rules have been summarized as
follows:

(1) The accused is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved.

(2) It must be proved that the accused, when he committed the act, 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 committing, or, if he did know this, not to know that what he was doing was wrong.

(3) If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if that act
was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.

(4) If the accused labours under partial delusion only, and is not in other respects insane, he
must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to
which the delusion exists were real.

27
Section of 84, IPC: An Analysis,Dr. Prateek Rastogi , JIAFM, 2006
28
The antecedent trial is reported in 4 St. Tr. (N.S)
SPECIFIC PROCEDURE FOR PERSONS WITH MENTAL INSANITY
ACCORDING TO THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

Sections 328-339 (Chapter 25) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) provide
provisions for accused persons of unsound mind, while Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 deals with an accused who is the a lunatic at the time of the commission of the offence.
Thus, the Cr. P. C. incorporates certain special provisions with regard to the procedure that is
to be followed in cases where unsoundness of mind is pleaded. The reason for this is because
the Legislature was conscious of the fact that whereas a person who is of unsound mind
cannot be convicted or detained in prison by virtue of the mental disability, that the law takes
into account certain other aspects of the matter, the most important of which is that the
individual has already exhibited certain dangerous traits such as the tendency to turn violent
or to attack other persons and in view of this position , the law does not permit the Court to
set such persons at liberty. The procedure that would have to be followed, therefore, is that
even if the accused cannot be detained any longer in prison that he will have to be admitted to
the Mental Hospital and the provisions of Section 335 of the Cr. P. C. will have to be
followed. In the following pages an attempt will be made to examine in detail the legislative
scheme of the Cr. P. C. relating to accused persons of unsound mind in respect to inquiry or
trial and other relevant issues comparing the scope and ambit of the similar provisions
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as the Limitation Act, 1963.

“According to Section 328 of the Cr. P. C. when a magistrate holding an enquiry has reason
to believe that the person against whom the inquiry is being held is of unsound mind and
consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate shall enquire into the fact of
such unsoundness of mind, and shall cause such person to be examined by the Civil Surgeon
of the district, of such other Medical Officer as the state Government may direct, and
thereupon shall examine such surgeon or other officer as a witness, and shall reduce the
examination to writing. Pending such examination and inquiry, the Magistrate may deal with
such person in accordance with the provisions of section 330 of the code. If such Magistrate
is of opinion that the person referred to in subsection (1) is of unsound mind and
consequently incapable of making his defence, he shall record a finding to that effect and
shall postpone further proceedings in the case A Magistrate has to proceed under Section 328
of the Cr. P. C. where the accused by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of making
his defence in inquiry against him, the Magistrate under this Section is not concerned with the
condition of the mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence. He must not
proceed under this section because the plea of insanity or unsoundness of mind is taken by
the accused in defence. A mere examination of the accused by the Civil Surgeon or the
Medical Officer and the certificate of unsoundness of mind is not sufficient, the Civil
Surgeon or the Medical Officer who has conducted the medical examination must be
examined as witness in the case. Where the Magistrate examines a house surgeon not
empowered by the State Government, it was held that the order was not sustainable.”29

“According to Section 329 of the Cr. P. C. if at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or
Court of Session, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind
and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, in the first
instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court, after
considering such medical and other evidence as may be produced before him, or if, is
satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further
proceedings in the case. The trial of the fact of the unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the
accused shall be deemed to be, part of his trial before the Magistrate or Court. Thus, Section
329 of the Cr. P. C. lays down the procedure to be followed when an accused standing trial
before a Court of Session or Magistrate by reason of unsoundness of mind or insanity is
incapable of making his defence.”30

“According to Section 330 of the Cr. P. C. whenever, a person is found, under Section 328 or
Section 329 of the Code, to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the
Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken
or not, may release him on sufficient security being given that he shall be properly taken care
of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his
appearance when required before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magistrate or
Court appoints in this behalf. If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or
Court, bail should not be taken, or if sufficient security is not given the Magistrate or Court,
as the case may be, shall order the accused to be detained in safe custody in such place and
manner as he or it may think fit, and shall report the action taken to the State Government,
provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made
otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have under the
Indian Lunacy Act 1912 (4 of 1912).”31

29
Section 328, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
30
Section 329, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
31
Section 330, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 331 of the Cr. P. C provides for the resumption of inquiry or trial of persons of
unsound mind. “According to Section 331 whenever an inquiry or a trial is postponed under
Section 328 or Section 329 of the Code, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, may at
any time, after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind, resume the inquiry or
trial, and require the accused to appear or be brought before such Magistrate or Court. When
the accused has been released under Section 330 and the sureties for his appearance produce
him to the officer whom the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf, the certificate of such
officer that the accused is capable of making his defence shall be receivable in evidence.”32

“According to Section 332 of the Cr. P. C., if, when the accused appears or is again brought
before the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, the Magistrate or the Court considers him
capable of making his defence, the inquiry or trial shall proceed. If the Magistrate or Court
considers the accused to be still incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or the Court
shall again act according to the provisions of Section 328 or 329 of the Cr. P. C, as the case
may be, and if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of
making his defence, shall deal with such accused in accordance with the provisions of
Section 330 of the Cr. P. C.”33

“According to Section 333 of the Cr. P. C, when the accused appears to be of sound mind at
the time of inquiry or trial, and the Magistrate is satisfied from the evidence given before him
that there is reason to believe that the accused committed an act, which, if he had been of
sound mind, would have been an offence, and that he was, at the time when the act was
committed, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
that it was wrong or contrary to law, the Magistrate shall proceed with the case, and, if the
accused ought to be tried by the Court of Session, commit him for trial before the Court of
Session.”34

“According to Section 334 of the Cr. P. C., whenever any person is acquitted upon the ground
that, at the time at which he is alleged to have committed an offence, he was, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged as constituting the
offence, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the finding shall state specifically whether he
committed the act or not.”35

32
Section 331, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
33
Section 332, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
34
Section 333, Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
35
Section 334, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Section 335 of the Cr. P. C lays down when an accused is acquitted on plea of insanity or
unsoundness of mind, the Court or the Magistrate, as the case may be, order for the detention
of the accused in a safe custody in such place and manner as it thinks fit. The Magistrate or
the Court, as the case may be, shall report to the State Government the action taken by him.
The provision as to the safe custody of the accused is mandatory, whether the accused is
acquitted by trial court or in appeal.”36

BURDEN OF PROOF OF INSANITY:

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not deal with the question of proof and its quantum to
avail of the defence of insanity. And it is a question falling within the ambit of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. However, the treatment of the subject here becomes necessary in order
to find out the practical limits of the defence of insanity in its evidential requirements. Under
law, every man is presumed to be sane and assumed to possess a sufficient degree of reason
to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. “Every person is presumed to
know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly, every person is also presumed to know
the law. The prosecution does not have to establish these facts.

In insanity defence, there are two aspects of proving an offense, which are as follows:

a. Commission of crime and

b. Insanity defence.

The burden of proving the commission of an offense is always on the prosecution, and that
never shifts. The prosecution has to prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the
onus of proving the existence of circumstances (Section 84 IPC) for insanity defence would
be on the accused (Section 105 of the Evidence Act) and the court shall presume the absence
of such circumstances. The accused has to prove by placing material before the court such as
expert evidence, oral and other documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the
prosecution evidence, satisfying that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of
knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The Supreme Court
have ascertained that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be
established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this,
lies on the appellant for claiming the benefit of the Section 84 provision. In Dahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakker versus state of Gujarat, this court has held that even if the accused was

36
Section 335, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offense, the
evidence placed before the court may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as
regards one or more of the ingredients of the offense, including mens rea of the accused and
in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general
burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.”37 Though the burden is on the
accused, he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy
the preponderance of probabilities. The burden of proof casted upon him is no higher than
that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

CONCLUSION:

Although section 84 tries to deal fairly with mentally ill offender but sometimes there may be
false acquittals or convictions. So, there is need for incorporating wider concepts like
emotions; pre act situations etc. Scope of legal insanity is to be widened to incorporate' some
more aspects of medical insanity. Stress should be on removing the crime and not the
criminal. Most of such criminals are emotionally unstable and are .usually undeterred by
punishments' so care should be taken to improve and support them and not to punish them.
Other than this the family of such persons suffers from guilt and social stigma. They should
be supported and care should be taken to not to let entire family suffer because of one
Individual. On the other hand, these criminals should not be let free in larger interests of
society but may be detained in psychiatric hospitals and proper assessment of their mental
status is to be made to avoid any false acquittals or convictions. Provision should be made for
examination by a psychiatrist in all such cases and fate of individual 'should not depend only
on discretion of one judge. Judge may be bound by law to give a particular judgment.
Opinion of a psychiatric doctor should be mandatory. Proper analysis of this act has to be
made and attempts should be to modify it. In foreign countries lot of cases have been .decided
on such issues and consideration have been given to pleas of irresistible impulse. Doctrine of
diminished responsibility has become a latest issue in giving decisions. We should also keep
us update of these advancements and should' incorporate newer provisions for a free and fair
trial.

CASE HEAD NOTE

A. Steepen v State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai Madras High Court

37
Math SB, Kumar CN, Moirangthem S. Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future. Indian J Psychol Med.
2015;37(4):381–387. doi:10.4103/0253-7176.168559
 16 March 2016

Bench S. NAGAMUTHU, Jaichandren

Where Reported 2016 Indlaw MAD 3704; 2017 ACJ 672; 2016 (2) MLJ(Crl)
513

Subject: Criminal

Keywords: Presumption, Forensic, Suicide, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Tamil Nadu,
Treatment, Reasonable Doubt, Doctor, Dead Body, Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor,
Handwriting, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Plea

Summary: Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302, 309, 84, 299 - Conviction -
Challenged - Trial Court convicted Accused and sentenced for offence u/ss.302, 309 of IPC -
Hence, instant appeal - Whether, conviction order passed against Accused was justified.

Held, on date of occurrence, Accused came to house of father in law of Accused with his son
(deceased), entered into room, bolted it from inside. Doctor, opined that death of deceased,
due to poison, cannot be ruled out. As per Forensic expert, there was no poison detected in
any of internal organs of deceased. Death was caused by this Accused by administering some
kind of poison, though precisely, nature of poison could not be detected. It is not every
homicide which is made punishable under IPC. It is only culpable homicide which is
punishable. Culpability as defined u/s. 299 of IPC is to be established by prosecution. Father
in law of Accused, stated that from date of accident in which wife of Accused was killed,
Accused was highly depressed and he was not in his normal sense. Doctor has stated that said
depression in medical terms in known as ‘Major depressive disorder’. Cognitive faculty of
Accused was not under his control and he was not conscious of consequences of his act.
Thus, Accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind at time of occurrence in terms of s.
84 of IPC and act of Accused in causing death of his son as well as in attempting to commit
suicide, would not make out any offence, either u/s. 302 of IPC or s. 309 of IPC. Thus,
Accused is entitled for acquittal. Appeal allowed.

Achanta Rama Krishna v State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Andhra Pradesh High Court 14 July 2006

Bench G. YETHIRAJULU, A. GOPAL REDDY

2006 Indlaw AP 509

Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

Keywords: Cross-Examination, Mens Rea, Child Witness, Charge Sheet, Defence Version,
Continuous, Eyewitness

Summary: Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302, 84 - Conviction for murder - Proof of
offence - Accused was charged for offence u/s. 302 of IPC and FIR was register and
investigation was completed - Lower Court convicted accused for offence punishable u/s. 302
of IPC and sentenced him - Hence, instant Appeal - Whether prosecution proved guilt of
accused beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence imposed on them were liable
to be set aside or modified - Held, unless accused placed sufficient material to show that he
was mentally sound by date of offence, he was not entitled for any benefit and burden was on
accused to establish that he was suffering from insanity and he was not in position to
understand as to what he was doing at time of commission of offence to bring act within
exceptions mentioned in s. 84 of IPC - However, there was no sufficient material in support
of defence version that accused was not capable of understanding what he was doing -
Therefore, as conduct of accused before and at time of commission of offence clearly
indicated that he was in position to understand happenings and in pursuance of that, he
committed murder of deceased, offence could not be brought under exceptions covered by
IPC - Thus, prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and lower Court
rightly convicted him therefore, there were no grounds to interfere with Judgment of lower
Court - Hence, judgment of lower Court was confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Albert Collins v State By Inspector of Police, P-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station,

(Law and Order), Coimbatore Madras High Court 12 July 2004

Bench M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, S. K. KRISHNAN

Where Reported 2004 Indlaw MAD 543

Subject: Criminal; Health & Drug; Practice & Procedure

Keywords: Burden Of Proof, Eye-Witness, Charge - Sheet

Summary: Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 84, 302 - medical insanity completely different from
legal insanity - burden of proof on accused - exception under Section 84 IPC is claimed by an
accused, the Court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the
accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law - entire conduct of the accused, from
the time of the commission of the offence up to the time of the commencement of the trial
proceedings before the court is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the plea
raised is genuine, bona fide or an afterthought - plea of insanity not made out - conviction
confirmed - appeal dismissed.

Amrish Mahendra Trivedi v State of Gujarat Gujarat High Court 29 July 2004

Bench: Kshitij R. Vyas, Akshay H. Mehta

Where Reported: 2004 Indlaw GUJ 18862; 2005 (2) G.L.R. 1604

Subject: Criminal Keywords Gujarat, Treatment, Blood, Dead Body, Jail, Mental Condition,
Change, Judicial Confession, Improvement, Accidental, Insane, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Plea

Summary: Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 84, 302 - Conviction - Sustainability -
Sessions Court convicted Appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC - Hence, instant
appeal - Whether, Sessions Court rightly convicted Appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302
of IPC.

Held, appellant has family history, his father was suffering from Schizophrenia. Appellant
was being treated for Schizophrenia since 1990 and thereafter during trial and even after
conviction. Condition of appellant had deteriorated after discontinuing treatment of Doctor
and gradually it had gone from bad to worst. As result of poor financial position due to losing
job, appellant had to take treatment as outdoor patient from LG Hospital. After killing wife,
running away to Indore with three year small daughter is not act of prudent man as anybody
in his place would have handed over custody of minor to relatives. Therefore, considering
matter from this angle, provisions of s. 84 of IPC are attracted. Though act of homicide
committed by Appellant otherwise would be offence of murder, he cannot be convicted of
same as it is established from facts and circumstances of case that Appellant was not capable
of knowing nature of act and what was wrong and against law. Sessions Court has not
examined matter from this angle and, therefore, has committed error in convicting Appellant
for offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC. Hence, order o conviction of Appellant is set aside.
Appeal allowed.

Anawarul Haque Siddique v State of West Bengal Calcutta High Court 24 April 2009

Bench: GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD

Where Reported: 2009 Indlaw CAL 625; 2010 (1) CalLT 258

Subject: Criminal

Summary: (A) Criminal - Indian Penal Code,1860, ss.302,201,84 - Indian Evidence

Act,1872, ss.45,51 - Conviction - Entitlement to exemption - Lack of evidence - Deceased
was given in marriage to appellant who killed deceased - FIR was registered and Additional
District and Sessions Judge convicted appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302,201 of IPC -
Hence, instant Appeal - Whether exemption can be given to appellant on basis of scanty
evidence.

Held, in instant case, except two sentences emanating from two of witnesses of prosecution
no other or further evidence is available. It is, in fact, their opinion which they have
expressed. The facts on basis of which opinion was formed by PW nos.1,4 have not been
disclosed. Formation of an opinion is in domain of the Court. If a witness from witness box
tells the Court about his opinion same would have no value whatsoever except in cases
covered by ss.45-51 of the Act. There can be no doubt that the evidence of PW nos.1,4
cannot come within purview of ss.45-51 of the Act. These sections contemplate evidence of
an expert primarily. Opinion is not admissible in evidence unless it is one of those which are
permitted to be given in evidence under any one of the above mentioned sections. There is no
evidence to show that cognitive faculties of appellant were impaired. The evidence on
contrary goes to suggest that he was fully aware that he was committing a crime. Thus,
exemption cannot be given to appellant. Appeal dismissed.
(B) Criminal - Bona fide of - Investigation - Whether documentary evidence adduced goes to
establish that there are shortcomings giving scope for suspicion as to bona fide of
Investigating Officer (IO).

Held, original inquest report goes to show that there are 5 paragraphs. In the first two
paragraphs, IO has noted what he observed as regards conditions of dead body, place where
dead body was lying, topography of that place, position of furniture etc. There is some gap
after second paragraph. It is quite probable that inquest was started at 12.30 noon on 30-3-
1985. After concluding explanatory investigation he in all likelihood took up attributory
investigation. During such investigation he naturally interrogated accuses when he made
statements on basis of which various items including jewellery were found from secret places
shown by accused himself. These were seized and seizure lists being exbts.3 to 7 were
prepared. It is also probable that third paragraph onwards in inquest report devoted entirely
top result of investigation made by him was recorded after seizure lists were made and there
is nothing wrong in it. The IO (PW8), it is true, in his cross- examination deposed that 'I have
got no explanation as regards my mentioning the seizure of articles etc. in the inquest report'.
This does not go to show that investigation was conducted by IO otherwise than in good
faith. Appeal dismissed.

Ratio - A person subject to insane impulses cannot claim exemption u/s.84 of IPC unless it
can be established that cognitive faculties of accused have been impaired so that he does not
know what he is doing nor does he know what he is doing is illegal or is wrong.

Ankireddy Eswara Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 27 November 2006

Bench:P. LAKSHMANA REDDY, T. MEENA KUMARI

Where Reported : 2006 Indlaw AP 50; 2007 (1) ALT 450

Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

Keywords: Cross-Examination, Grounds Of Appeal, Unsound Mind, Charge Sheet, Medical

Expert, Eyewitness, Postmortem Report
Summary: (A) Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.302 - Murder - Conviction - Inspector
of Police filed charge sheet against appellant accused for offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC -
Sessions Judge found appellant-accused guilty of offence and convicted him for said offence
- Hence, instant Appeal - Whether prosecution succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that death of deceased was homicidal death and appellant was responsible for homicidal
death of deceased - Held, father of deceased, cousin of accused, cousin's daughter of accused
and son of accused had categorically stated that deceased died on account of injuries found
on her person - There was absolutely no reason for son of accused to speak false evidence
against his own father - Further, Medical Officer opined that that deceased would appear to
have died due to multiple injuries and that injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course - Evidence of Medical Officer was supported by postmortem report and it would
safely be concluded that death of deceased was homicidal death - Thus, it had no hesitation to
hold that it was accused and accused alone was responsible for homicidal death of deceased -
Therefore, prosecution succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was
responsible for homicidal death of deceased - Appeal dismissed.(B) Criminal - Indian Penal
Code, 1860, s.84 - Legality of - Unsoundness of mind - Whether conviction and sentence
recorded against appellant by trial Court were sustainable in law - Held, burden was on
accused to prove that he was of unsound mind at time of incident - However, as seen from
material available on record, accused did hot plead at any stage of trial that he was of
unsound mind and he was incapable of knowing nature of act as to what he was doing by date
of death of deceased - Further, after committing offence, accused ran away and absconded, if
he was not capable of understanding his own acts, he would not have fled away and he would
have remained there itself - Son of accused and deceased stated that his mother intended to go
to Kuwait and she was making preparations to go there without knowledge of his father -
Thus, prosecution established motive for accused to kill his wife - Therefore, accused failed
to prove that he was of unsound mind at time of committing offence and he was entitled for
benefit of s.84 of IPC - Hence, order of conviction passed by trial Court was confirmed -
Appeal dismissed.

Babasaheb v State of Maharashtra Bombay High Court, 27 September 2007

Bench S. P. KUKDAY, P. V. HARDAS

Where Reported 2007 Indlaw MUM 1164; 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 505; 2008 CRLJ 2935;
2008 (Supp) Bom.C.R. 110
Subject: Criminal

Summary: Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860,ss.84,105,302 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, s.105 - Murder -Validity of conviction - Proving of legal insanity- It was
alleged that appellant committed murder of his wife - After completion of investigation,
charge-Sheet was submitted against appellant - Additional Sessions Judge convicted
appellant for committing offence punishable u/s.302 of and is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life - Hence, instant Appeal.

Held, appellant has pleaded legal insanity, in order to establish his defence the appellant must
satisfy the test prescribed by s. 84 of IPC. Law envisaged by s. 84 of IPC and s.105 of the Act
for proving legal insanity and nature of burden of proof which the offender must discharge.
S.105 of the Act provides that burden of proving existence of circumstances bringing his case
within any of General Exceptions shall be on accused. The section further provides that Court
shall presume absence of such circumstances. Initial burden to prove guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt is always on prosecution and never shifts. Appellant was suffering
from the addiction to alcohol. At time of commission of offence he was not suffering from
any mental disease and was in full control of all his cognitive faculties prior to, at time of and
after commission of offence. Appellant has failed to establish that he was unable to
comprehend nature and consequences of his act at time of commission of the offence. Hence,
there is no fault with conclusion of Sessions Judge that appellant caused death of his wife
with requisite intention and is guilty of committing her murder. Thus, order of conviction and
sentence passed by Sessions Judge is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Ratio - The burden to prove that his case is covered by statutory exception shifts on accused
only after initial burden is discharged by prosecution.

Balendrakasi Bhupathi Matchva Raju v State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By P.P.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 20 September 2007

Bench: D. S. R. VARMA, K. C. BHANU

Where Reported: 2007 Indlaw AP 638; 2007 (3) ALT 327

Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

Keywords: Cross-Examination, Eye-Witness, Blood Stained Earth, Specific Plea

Summary: Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 84, 302 - Murder - Conviction -
Entitlement for benefit - PW1 lodged report stating that accused killed deceased and based on
which investigation was pressed into service - Charge was framed against accused - Court
below convicted accused for offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC - Hence, instant Appeal -
Whether conviction and sentence, imposed by Court below on accused for offence punishable
u/s. 302 of IPC were sustainable and accused was entitled for benefit u/s. 84 of IPC - Held, it
appeared that only PWs2, 3 were eye-witnesses and evidence of other witnesses was
incidental and consequential - Therefore, in order to assess whether offence was committed
by accused, it was only evidence of PWs2 and 3 that had to be looked into - From perusal of
evidence on record, pertaining to PWs2 and 3, there was no doubt that it was accused alone
who committed offence - Further, there was no history on record as to whether accused had
received any treatment, at any pointed of time before commission of offence - There was
nothing whatsoever, on record or earlier history whatsoever about accused mental
unsoundness on date of offence - Conduct of accused, immediately after offence or his arrest
appear to be normal - No abnormality was ever noticed by anyone including mediators or
even by PW3 who was no other than brother of accused himself - However, burden laid on
prosecution to prove all charges but when attempt was made, at earliest point of time to take
shelter u/s. 84 of IPC, burden shifted to accused and said burden was not at all discharged
much less properly - Therefore, accused was person who committed offence and hence he
could not take shelter u/s. 84 of IPC - Appeal dismissed.

Vyankatesh Maruti Arandekarnaik v State of Maharashtra Bombay High Court 01

February 2000

Bench: P. V. KAKADE, VISHNU SAHAI

Where Reported: 2000 Indlaw MUM 677; 2000 (3) MahLJ 127

Subject: Criminal

Summary: Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 84, 302, 323 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 294 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s.105 - Murder -
Insanity - Conviction - Appellant was married to victim about one year prior to incident -
Appellant was of eccentric nature - Appellant started beating his wife finding some small
excuses - Appellant assaulted victim with hoe and also abused and threatened her - Victim
was injured extensively on head, back and other parts of body - Victim was taken to hospital,
but she succumbed to death due to injuries - Trial Court convicted appellant - Hence, instant
appeal.

Held, prosecution evidence is sufficient to squarely saddle the appellant with the criminal
liability with which he is charged. Evidence of eye-witnesses is sufficient to bring home the
guilt because it has established that it was the appellant himself, and none else, was the author
of the crime. No doubt the eyewitnesses are relatives, but the fact remains that their presence
on the spot is quite natural and their evidence cannot be disbelieved even for a moment.
Moreover, it is also to be noted that the witnesses are mother and brothers of the appellant
and they have absolutely no reason to involve the appellant falsely in the ghastly crime of
murder of victim. Medical evidence fortifies the prosecution case. All the available evidence
before us squarely establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Absolutely
no defence evidence had been led, nor circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show, that the
appellant was insane at the time of commission of the act. Appellant was of eccentric nature
and, therefore, was referred to Mental Asylum long time ago prior to incident. However, this
aspect would not be sufficient to establish the defence theory that the appellant was an insane
person at time of commission of the offence as contemplated by s. 84 of IPC. Conviction
confirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Ratio - To invoke s.84 of IPC, it is necessary that it must be established that person is of
unsound mind at time of doing act

Virendra Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh High Court 25 August 2010

Bench: DHIRENDRA MISHRA, R. N. CHANDRAKAR

Where Reported: 2010 Indlaw CTH 145

Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

Summary: Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Indian Evidence Act,
1872, s.105 - Murder - Unsound mind - Acquittal - Complainant gave merg intimation
against appellant that appellant had committed murder of deceased, 'X' - After registering
crime, police proceeded for scene of occurrence and prepared inquest over person of
deceased - Charge was framed against appellant u/s.302 of IPC - Trial Court convicted
appellant u/s.302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.100/- -
Hence instant appeal.

Held, circumstantial evidence available against appellant was that he kept deceased in his
house for last 15 days and her dead body was found in his house by his father and other
witnesses and that he confessed before villagers, his father and real brothers that he
committed murder of deceased by pressing her neck. Prosecution had proved involvement of
appellant in crime in question beyond rea-sonable doubt. Where plea of unsoundness of mind
was raised by accused, burden of proving same was on him. There was unrebutted evidence
of prosecution witnesses available on record that appellant was suffering from mental
sickness since last 8-10 years and his father took him to various places to got him treated but
he could not be cured. Perusal of unrebutted evidence appeared that appellant was suffering
from fit of insanity 10-15 days prior to date of incident when he forcefully confined a mad
lady/deceased in his house and committed her murder in a most brutal manner without any
apparent motive. Appellant had proved existence of circumstances as required by s.105 of
1872 Act so as to get benefit of s.84 of IPC. Prosecution had failed to establish element of
mens rea and appellant had acted on account of unsoundness of mind because of which he
was incapable of knowing nature of act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to
law. Conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant u/s.302 of IPC were set aside and he
was acquitted of said charge. Appeal allowed

Vidhya Devi v State of Rajasthan Rajasthan High Court 08 January 2004

Bench: SUNIL KUMAR GARG, RAJESH BALIA

Where Reported: 2004 Indlaw RAJ 50; 2004 CRLJ 2332; 2004 (2) RLW 1261

Subject: Criminal

Keywords: Insanity

Summary: (A) Criminal - Indian Penal Code,1860, ss.302,307,324 - Conviction for murder -
Admissibility of evidence - PW1 lodged oral report of murder with the Police Station -
Charges were framed for offence u/ss.302,307,324 of IPC against appellant - Additional
Sessions Judge convicted appellant for offence u/ss.302,307,324 of IPC and sentenced him -
Hence, instant Appeal - Whether evidence can be discarded on ground that it is given by
relatives of deceased.

Held, the medical evidence showed deceased died because of haemorrhagic shock due to
multiple injuries and thus, it can be said that the death of the deceased was homicidal one.
Looking to statements of the eye-witnesses-PWs.1,4,5, their testimony cannot be rejected
merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. PW1 is the author of the report
and the name of PW5 is also found in that report and statements of eye-witnesses on the point
that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased appear to be straight forward,
reliable and trustworthy and fully corroborated by the medical evidence which is found in the
statement of PW6 thus, cannot reasonably be inferred or presumed that they were telling lie
or falsely implicating the appellant similarly there is no illegality in doing so. Simply because
PWs.1,4,5 happen to be relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded, as their
testimony is worth reliable and fully corroborated by medical evidence. Appeal allowed.

(B) Criminal - Evidence of recovery - Whether testimony of eye-witnesses affects if evidence

of recovery is rejected.

Held, where there is direct evidence, the evidence of recovery is of little importance and thus,
if the evidence of recovery of kulhari at the instance of the accused-appellant is rejected, it
would not affect the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Hence, the evidence of recovery is of no
use to the prosecution. Appeal allowed.

(C) Criminal - Indian Penal Code,1860, s.84 - Indian Evidence Act,1872, s.105 -Unsoundness
of mind - Burden of proof - Entitlement to benefit - Whether appellant is entitled to benefit of
s.84 of IPC.

Held, the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was at the crucial point of
time, such as is described in s.84 of IPC lies on the accused, who claims the benefit of this
exemption. FIR shows that at the time of committing the murder of deceased, the appellant
was very much furious and violent and she was controlled with difficulty and if she would
not have been controlled, she would have also committed murder of her mother-in-law which
clearly established that the appellant was unsoundness of mind. Further developments also
clearly reveal that she was a patient of mental disease 'schizophrenia', which is one of the
forms of insanity. Before the challan was filed in Court the appellant was sent to Mental
Hospital, for treatment. When the appellant was produced before Court the trial Judge found
her behavior abnormal and that appellant was suffering from mental disease 'schizophrenia'
and that state existed before and after the occurrence and therefore, the defence of insanity
stands proved. Thus, existence of circumstances as required by s.105 of the Act has proved to
get benefit of s.84 of IPC. Again, at the time of commission of the crime, the appellant was
incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and thus, she is
entitled to the benefit of s.84 of IPC. The accused-appellant has proved the existence of
circumstances bringing her case within the purview of s.84 of IPC. Appeal allowed.

Velusamy v State Madras High Court 18 September 1984

Bench:S. A. KADER, T N SINGARAVELU

Where Reported:1984 Indlaw MAD 23; 1985 CRLJ 981

Subject: Criminal

Keywords: Eye-Witness, Unsound Mind, Charge - Sheet

Summary: Criminal - Indian Penal Code,1860, ss.300,84 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973,

s.313 - Murder - Appellant-accused convicted for murder - Appeal - Case of patricide in
which a wayward son has done to death his aged father for refusing to give him money for his
wayward expenses - Accused dropped grinding stone on head of his father - Conclusive
evidence that accused who has done his father to death by hitting him on his head with a
grinding stone - Whether accused was at time of commission of offence of unsound mind? -
Burden of proving same lies on defence - Admission made by doctor of Institute of Mental
Health that disease noticed in prisoner might have existed for about 2 to 3 years prior to his
examination - However suggestion made that for about a year prior to commission of this
offence accused, was of unsound mind, has been stoutly denied by persons who would have
been closely moving with accused being his relation, and their testimony is entitled to due
credence - Stray admission made by medical officer in course of cross-examination that
accused was of unsound mind for about 2 or 3 years prior to occurrence cannot be accepted -
In all probability accused might have lost his mental balance because of heinous crime
committed by him against his own father - It is not every person mentally diseased, who is
exempted from criminal responsibility u/s.84 IPC - Such exemption can be claimed only
where insane person 'is incapable of knowing nature of act or that he is doing what was
either wrong or contrary to law' - Good deal of difference between 'medical
insanity' and 'legal insanity' - Legal insanity is a much narrower concept
and confined to impairment of cognitive faculty of mind which makes offender incapable of
knowing nature of act done by him - Absolutely no record of any abnormality of mind on part
of accused prior to commission of this offence - Accused had a clear motive to attack his
father and he has violently attacked him with full knowledge of what he was doing -
Absolutely no scope for inferring that he did not know that what he was doing was either
wrong or contrary to law - No room whatsoever to give accused benefit of s.84, IPC -
Conviction confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Velan Velarasan v State, represented by Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri

Madras High Court 22 June 2016

Bench: S. NAGAMUTHU, V. Bharathidasan

Where Reported: 2016 Indlaw MAD 3080; 2016 (4) MLJ(Crl) 364

Subject: Criminal; Practice & Procedure

Keywords: Burden Of Proof, Presumption, Mens Rea, Tamil Nadu, Proof, Treatment,
Reasonable Doubt, Place Of Occurrence, Blood, Dead Body, Autopsy, Alarm, Insane, Indian
Lunacy Act, 1912, Mental Health Act, 1987, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, Plea

Summary: Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860, ss. 84, 201, 302 - Murder - Conviction - Appellant/accused person was
closed relative of ‘C’/deceased and also residing in same village - On basis of complaint of
complainant/PW1 who was son of ‘C’, case was registered against appellant for offences
punishable u/s.201 r/w s.302 of IPC and s.302 of IPC - On completion of investigation charge
sheet was framed against appellant for offences punishable u/s.201 r/w s.302 of IPC and
s.302 of IPC - Trial Court after conclusion of trial and on appreciation of evidence convicted
appellant for offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC and acquitted him from offence u/s.201 r/w
s.302 of IPC - Hence instant appeal.
Held, there is no evidence for motive between appellant and ‘C’. Plucking of coconuts by
appellant in presence of ‘C’ and PW1 would only give initial indication that appellant had
mental health problem. No sane person would choose such a time to pluck coconuts in
presence of owner of farm. It has been stated by PW1 that at that time, appellant had stated
that he would cut ‘C’ one day or other. Court finds it difficult to believe said part of evidence
of PW1. Court is not prepared to give any weightage for words allegedly uttered by appellant,
as spoken by PW1, three days prior to occurrence. It was only after arrival of PWs2 and 3,
appellant had left said place. Said conduct of appellant would give another indication that he
had some mental health problem. After appellant was arrested, going by his behaviour in
Court and responses he showed to Court proceedings, trial Court suspected some mental
health problem for him. It was reason why, he was sent to Institute of Mental Health, for
examination. Presumption that appellant was not insane is, of course, rebuttable. But, by
means of circumstantial evidence, said presumption has been rebutted. For said reasons,
Court holds that appellant is entitled for benefit of s.84 of IPC. Appellant has not yet become
fully alright and he requires treatment on permanent basis. Appeal allowed.

CASE DIGEST

A. Steepen v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai 2016 Indlaw MAD

3704; 2017 ACJ 672; 2016 (2) MLJ(Crl) 513
Abdul Latif v. State of Assam 1981 Indlaw GUW 45; 1981 CRLJ 1205
Achanta Rama Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Another 2006 Indlaw AP 509
Agnes Alias Kunjumol v. Regeena Thomas 2010 Indlaw KER 569; 2011 (1) KLT 588
Albert Collins v. State By Inspector of Police, P-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station,
(Law and Order), Coimbatore 2004 Indlaw MAD 543
Amarjit Singh v. Kuljinder Singh 2016 Indlaw PNH 2346
Amrish Mahendra Trivedi v. State of Gujarat 2004 Indlaw GUJ 18862; 2005 (2) G.L.R.
1604
Anandi v. Emperor 1923 Indlaw ALL 185; AIR 1923 ALL 327B
Anawarul Haque Siddique v. State of West Bengal 2009 Indlaw CAL 625; 2010 (1) CalLT
258
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee and Others v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Others 2009 Indlaw AP 30; 2009 (2) ALD 1; 2009 (1) ALT 754
Anil v. State of Maharashtra 2008 Indlaw MUM 469; 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1569
Ankireddy Eswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2006 Indlaw AP 50; 2007 (1) ALT 450
Ashiruddin Ahmed v. King 1948 Indlaw CAL 43; AIR 1949 CAL 182
Atrup v. State of Rajasthan 2003 Indlaw RAJ 246; 2003 CRLJ 4031; 2004 (1)
RCR(Criminal) 579; 2004 (1) RLW 22
Babasaheb v. State of Maharashtra 2007 Indlaw MUM 1164; 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 505;
2008 CRLJ 2935; 2008 (Supp) Bom.C.R. 110
Balak v. State of Maharashtra 2008 Indlaw MUM 1356; 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 408
Balendrakasi Bhupathi Matchva Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By P.P.
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2007 Indlaw AP 638; 2007 (3) ALT 327
Balsai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) 2001 Indlaw CTH 69; 2002 (1)
M.P.H.T.(CG) 12
Balu S/o Domaji Petkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer,
Ramnagar, Distt. Chandrapur 2015 Indlaw MUM 2417; 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 112
Balwant Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2014 Indlaw HP 526
Bapu Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 Indlaw SC 608; (2007) 8 SCC 66; (2007) 3
SCC (Cr) 509; AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1314; 2007 (3) JCC 1716; JT 2007 (9) SC 110; 2007 (4)
KLT 63; 2007 (3) RCR(Criminal) 343; 2007(8) SCALE 455; [2007] 7 S.C.R. 917
Barelal v. State 1959 Indlaw MP 80; AIR 1960 MP 102
Basanti v. State 1988 Indlaw ORI 16; 1989 CRLJ 415
Benar Singh Tanti, Accused- v. State of Assam 1976 Indlaw GUW 36; 1977 CRLJ 296
Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan 2015 Indlaw RAJ 451
Bharat Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 2004 Indlaw RAJ 37; 2004 CRLJ 1958; 2004 (3)
RCR(Criminal) 182; 2004 (2) RLW 1160
Bharat Tasa v. State of Assam 2016 Indlaw GUW 606; 2017 (2) GauLR 72
Bhaskar S/o Katuji Pal v. State of Maharashtra 2013 Indlaw MUM 1876; 2014 ALL MR
(Cri) 2548
Bhaurao S/O. Jairam Kadam v. Nanded Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others 2000
Indlaw MUM 304; 2000 (3) CLR 322
Bhoda Ram Boro v. State of Assam 2015 Indlaw GUW 193; 2015 (3) GauLR 673
Bhuali Mahto S/o Puran Mahto v. State of Bihar 2013 Indlaw PAT 116
Bhura Kharia v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 2007 Indlaw AP 35; 2007 (2)
ALT 157
Bipul Modi Alias Mudi S/o Sri Balia Mudi v. State of Assam and another 2016 Indlaw
GUW 237; 2017 (2) GauLR 364
Bolabhai Hirabhai v. State of Gujarat 2000 Indlaw GUJ 606; 2000 (3) G.L.R. 2122
Budha Dattu Umavane v. State of Maharashtra 1984 Indlaw MUM 25; 1985 (1)
Bom.C.R. 508; 1985 CRLJ 844

Chabi Kharka S/o Late Man Bahadur Kharka v. State of Sikkim 2015 Indlaw SIK 23;
2015 CRLJ 2619
Chandra Bhan v. State 2004 Indlaw ALL 295; 2005 CRLJ 351
Chandu Lal v. Crown 1923 Indlaw ALL 25; AIR 1924 ALL 186B
Channabasappa v. State of Mysore 1956 Indlaw KAR 39; AIR 1957 MYS 68
Charan Singh v. Union of India and Others 2008 Indlaw DEL 509
Chellathurai v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District 2012 Indlaw MAD 372
Chet Ram v. State 1971 Indlaw HP 13; 1971 CRLJ 1246
Chiranji v. State 1952 Indlaw NAG 59; 1952 NLJ 350
Choteylal v. State 1956 Indlaw MP 13; AIR 1956 BHOPAL 57
Chuden Tamang v. State of Sikkim2016 Indlaw SIK 17
Dalli Dalgeet Singh S/o Late Jagat Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, through PS
Chirmiri, Korea 2016 Indlaw CTH 697; 2016 (2) CGLJ 365
Dasaundhi v. State 1965 Indlaw HP 18; AIR 1965 HP 68
Deepak Bapurao Yedage v. State of Maharashtra 2015 Indlaw MUM 1133
Dhaneswar Pradhani v. State of Assam 2002 Indlaw GUW 60; 2003 CRLJ 733
Dhani Ram Nathoo Ram Kushwha v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 Indlaw MP 526;
2000 (1) MPLJ 248; 2000 (2) RCR(Criminal) 824
Dhani Ram Nathoo Ram Kushwha v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 indlaw MPLJ 380
Dhaniram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2005 Indlaw MP 570; 2005(5) M.P.H.T. 265
Dhanna Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2008 Indlaw RAJ 565; 2008 (3) RLW 2092
Dimple Dimpu Gurcharan v. State of Punjab 2008 Indlaw UTT 1385; 2009 (1)
RCR(Criminal) 602
Dipam Hazarika Jack Singhania S/o Late Jogen Hazarika v. State of Assam 2013
Indlaw GUW 198
Dr. A. G. Bhagwat v. U.T., Chandigarh 1988 Indlaw PNH 13; 1988 (3) Crimes 430; 1989
CRLJ 214

Dulal Nayek v. State 1986 Indlaw CAL 23; 1987 (1) CalLT 29; 1987 CRLJ 1561
Durga Domar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Indlaw SC 21236; JT 2001 (10) SC 203
Elavarasan v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police 2011 Indlaw SC 395; (2011) 7 SCC 110;
AIR 2011 SC 2816; 2011 CRLJ 4329; JT 2011 (8) SC 77; 2011 (4) MLJ(Crl) 864; 2011 (3)
RCR(Criminal) 543; 2011(7) SCALE 33; [2011] 10 S.C.R. 1147
Emperor v. Ulfat Singh 1946 Indlaw ALL 77; AIR 1947 ALL 301
Etwa Oraon v. State 1960 Indlaw PAT 786; AIR 1961 PAT 355
Gardara Singh v. State of H.P. 2008 Indlaw HP 308; 2008 (3) ShimLC 418
Gelsing Pida Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2010 Indlaw MUM 520; 2010 ALL MR (Cri)
2411; 2010 CRLJ 4097
General Manager (Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) and another v. Samsun Nessa and
another 2016 Indlaw CAL 633; 2016 (151) FLR 426; 2016 (3) LLJ 541
Geron Ali v. Emperor 1940 Indlaw CAL 203; AIR 1941 CAL 129
Girjabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) 2006 Indlaw CTH 33; 2007 (2)
CGLJ 39; 2007 (1) M.P.H.T.(CG) 127
Gola v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 Indlaw ALL 1809
Gongadi Rama Subbarayudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2008 Indlaw AP 9
Gopal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2015 Indlaw ALL 2253; 2016 CRLJ 1675; 2015 (2)
ILR(All) 961
Govindaraj v. State 2005 Indlaw MAD 748; 2005 CRLJ 4676
Hagroo Ikaru v. State 1952 Indlaw MUM 229; AIR 1953 NAG 255; 1953 NLJ 231
Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008 Indlaw SC 1365; (2008) 16 SCC 109;
AIR 2009 SC 31; 2009 CRLJ 346; 2008 (4) JCC 2372; JT 2008 (9) SC 488; 2008 (3) KLT
969; 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal) 179; 2009 (1) RLW 372; 2008(12) SCALE 102; [2008] 12
S.C.R. 949
Harminder Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2004 Indlaw JK 20; 2004 CRLJ 4517
Hazara Singh, Convict v. State 1957 Indlaw PNH 55; AIR 1958 PUNJAB 104
Hedu alias Raju Sandil v. State of Orissa 2012 Indlaw ORI 112; 2012 (2) ILR(Cut) 470
Hiran Rana v. State of Orissa 2011 Indlaw ORI 91; 2012 (1) ILR(Cut) 624; 2012 (1) OLR
283
Hitendra v. State of Maharashtra 2009 Indlaw MUM 1028; 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2735
Hori Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 Indlaw ALL 2841
In Re : G. J. Joseph v. 1939 Indlaw MAD 457; AIR 1939 MAD 407
In Re : Govindswami 1964 Indlaw MAD 245; AIR 1965 MAD 283; 1965 (2) MLJ 489
In Re : Jinnappa Subbappa Gabannayar 1961 Indlaw KAR 39; 1961 CRLJ 250
In Re : Kandasami Mudali 1959 Indlaw MAD 198; AIR 1960 MAD 316
In Re : Kulandai Thevar 1949 Indlaw MAD 177; AIR 1950 MAD 592
In Re : Manickam v. 1950 Indlaw MAD 68; AIR 1950 MAD 576; 1950 (1) MLJ 813
In Re : Padala Suryanarayana 1964 Indlaw AP 87; AIR 1965 AP 28
In Re : Pappathi Animal 1958 Indlaw MAD 801; AIR 1959 MAD 239; 1959 (1) MLJ 125
In Re : Rajagopala Aiyangar 1951 Indlaw MAD 161; AIR 1952 MAD (39) 289; 1951 (2)
MLJ 593
In Re : Raju Shetty 1959 Indlaw KAR 15; AIR 1960 MYS 48
In Re : Sankappa Shetty v. 1940 Indlaw MAD 441; AIR 1941 MAD 326
In Re : Subramaniam Alias Allabaksh 1963 Indlaw MAD 219; AIR 1964 MAD 528; 1964
CRLJ 683; 1964 (1) MLJ 156
Jagdish v. State Of Madhya Pradesh 2009 Indlaw SC 1158; (2009) 9 SCC 495; AIR 2010
SC (Supp) 373; JT 2009 (12) SC 300; 2009 (4) MLJ(Crl) 1287; 2009(12) SCALE 580;
[2009] 14 S.C.R. 727
Jagtar Singh Jagga Ganja v. State of Delhi 2012 Indlaw DEL 2369; 2012 (190) DLT 445;
2012 (2) JCC 950
Jayakrushna Senapati v. State of Orissa 2011 Indlaw ORI 268; 2011 (2) ILR(Cut) 291
Jayanta Kumar Mondal v. Pratima Mondal 2014 Indlaw CAL 1390
Jeevan Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2015 Indlaw HP 874; 2015 CRLJ 4619
Josh S/o C. Mathew v. State of Maharashtra 2012 Indlaw MUM 170; 2012 ALL MR (Cri)
1945
Jyoti Swarup v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2014 Indlaw HP 333
Kalachand Gorai and others v. State of West Bengal 2014 Indlaw CAL 312; 2014 CRLJ
3327
Kali Kalidoss Kalirajan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, Kezhavalavu
Police Station, Madurai 2017 Indlaw MAD 2048
Kalleshwar Nagari Bigar ShetiSahakari Patsanstha Limited v. State of Maharashtra
and another 2014 Indlaw MUM 715
Kamal Bhardwaj, through Satish Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another 2016
Indlaw DEL 4884; 2016 (232) DLT 603
Kamala Bhuniya v. State of West Bengal 2006 Indlaw CAL 55; 2006 CRLJ 998
Kamla Singh v. State 1953 Indlaw PAT 599; AIR 1955 PAT 209
Kanaram Bhuraram Sahu v. State of Maharashtra 2014 Indlaw MUM 1489; 2014 ALL
MR (Cri) 2024
Kanbi Kurji Duba v. State 1960 Indlaw GUJ 4; AIR 1960 GUJ 1
Kandey Hembrom v. State of Bihar 2004 Indlaw JHKD 127; 2005 CRLJ 1562
Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya v. State of Kerala 1966 Indlaw KER 1257; AIR 1967
KER 92
Karma Urang v. Emperor 1927 Indlaw CAL 137; AIR 1928 CAL 238
Kashiram v. State 1956 Indlaw MP 56; AIR 1957 MB 104
Kazi Bazlur Rahman v. Emperor 1928 Indlaw CAL 35; AIR 1929 CAL 1
King v. Arakhit Alias Jada Moharana 1949 Indlaw ORI 37; AIR 1953 ORI 30
King-Emperor v. Tincouri Dhopi 1922 Indlaw CAL 6; AIR 1923 CAL 460
Kishanlal and others v. State of M. P. 2017 Indlaw MP 212
Kishore Kumar S/o Samaru Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh 2013 Indlaw CTH 78; 2014
(1) CGLJ 388
Kodulal Laxman v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 Indlaw MP 5; 2010 CRLJ 2145
Konta Munda v. The State of Jharkhand 2015 Indlaw JHKD 368
Krishna Dev Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2013 Indlaw ALL 310
Kuttappan v. State of Kerala 1985 Indlaw KER 3; 1986 CRLJ 271
Lachhman v. Emperor 1923 Indlaw ALL 84; AIR 1924 ALL 413
Lago Sinku Sunil Sinku v. State of Jharkhand 2012 Indlaw JHKD 66
Lakshmi v. State 1958 Indlaw ALL 120; AIR 1959 ALL 534
Laxmandas Mangaldas Manikpuri v. State of Maharashtra 1996 Indlaw MUM 420;
1997 (1) MahLJ 435
Leena Balkrishna Nair, Yerawada Central Prison v. State of Maharashtra 2010 Indlaw
MUM 352; 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1740; 2010 CRLJ 3292; 2010 (5) RCR(Criminal) 274
Lok Bahadur Dahal S/o Indra Bahadur Dahal v. State of Sikkim 2012 Indlaw SIK 32;
2012 CRLJ 4996
Luvana Vaghumal Kherajmal v. State 1954 Indlaw GUJ 4; AIR 1955 SAU 13
M. J. Ahir Hussain v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Siruganoor 2016 Indlaw
MAD 2551; 2016 (3) MLJ(Crl) 664
Machi Parvaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1985 Indlaw AP 14; 1985 CRLJ 1824
Madesh v. State by the Inspector of Police Nagavalli Police Station, Salem District 2013
Indlaw MAD 2584; 2014 CRLJ 96; 2013 (4) MLJ(Crl) 513; 2014 (2) RCR(Criminal) 253
Madho Singh Mahi Singh v. State 1952 Indlaw PNH 90; AIR 1953 PEPSU 17
Madhukar G. Nigade v. State of Maharashtra 2005 Indlaw MUM 561; 2006 CRLJ 1305
Madvi Chaitu S/o Chamru Madia v. State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station,
Bastar
2015 Indlaw CTH 188; 2016 (2) CGLJ 72
Maluku Mohamed v. State 2006 Indlaw MAD 2253; 2006 CRLJ 3339
Mani Kundaswami Shettiyar v. State of Maharashtra 2014 Indlaw MUM 833; 2014 ALL
MR (Cri) 3436
Mariappan v. State of Tamil Nadu 2013 Indlaw SC 258; (2013) 12 SCC 270; 2013 CRLJ
2334; 2013 (3) JCC 1579; JT 2013 (8) SC 522; 2013 (2) RCR(Criminal) 839; 2013(6)
SCALE 185; [2013] 4 S.C.R. 273
Mariappan v. State, Represented by Sub-inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police
Station, Theni 2006 Indlaw MAD 2323
Marimuthu v. State Inspector of Police, Kanchipuram 2009 Indlaw MAD 1480; 2009
CRLJ 3633; 2009 (3) MLJ(Crl) 410
Minati Rani Kotal v. State of West Bengal 2012 Indlaw CAL 680
Mitu Khadia v. State of Orissa 1982 Indlaw ORI 42; 1983 CRLJ 1385
Mohd. Sadiq v. State 2009 Indlaw DEL 2743
Motiram Maroti Dhule v. State of Maharashtra 2002 Indlaw MUM 633; 2002 (3) MahLJ
882
Mustaq Ali Manullah Salmani v. State of Maharashtra 2014 Indlaw MUM 1575; 2014
ALL MR (Cri) 2776
Nakula Chandra Aich v. State of Orissa 1982 Indlaw ORI 26; 1982 CRLJ 2158
Nandeswar Das v. State of Assam 2004 Indlaw GUW 59; 2004 CRLJ 4723
Nandeswar Kalita v. State of Assam 1982 Indlaw GUW 13; 1983 CRLJ 1515
Narad Pariyar alias Navin S/o Man Singh Pariyar v. State of Sikkim Through Chief
Secretary, Government of Sikkim 2014 Indlaw SIK 48
Narayan Chandra Dey v. State 1987 Indlaw CAL 27; 1988 CRLJ 387
Naresh Ch. Nath v. State 1969 Indlaw GUW 49; 1971 CRLJ 407
Nawal Singh Nol Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2010 Indlaw RAJ 470
Netrananda Behara v. State 1968 Indlaw ORI 107; AIR 1968 ORI 223
Nikumani Sarmah S/o Late Deben Sarmah v. State of Assam 2016 Indlaw GUW 320
Nivrutti Dhondiba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 1984 Indlaw MUM 35; 1984 (2)
Bom.C.R. 722; 1984 (86) BomLR 462; 1985 CRLJ 449
Omkarlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1986 Indlaw MP 23; 1987 CRLJ 1289
Pancha v. Emperor 1931 Indlaw ALL 181; AIR 1932 ALL 233
Paramananda Patra v. State 1969 Indlaw ORI 80; AIR 1969 ORI 222
Paramjeet Singh v. State 2013 Indlaw DEL 102
Parmo (In Jail) v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2017 Indlaw ALL 965
Peerusingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1986 Indlaw MP 27; 1987 CRLJ 1781
Phulbaj S/o Nankaram Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House
Officer, Sarguja 2015 Indlaw CTH 178; 2016 (2) CGLJ 54
Prabhat Gogoi v. State of Assam 2017 Indlaw GUW 5; 2017 (2) GauLR 451
Prabhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2014 Indlaw RAJ 1472; 2014 CRLJ 4264
Prabhunath v. State 1955 Indlaw ALL 43; AIR 1957 ALL 667
Prakash Saha S/o Bhagwan Prasad Saha v. State of Sikkim 2012 Indlaw SIK 36
Prakash v. State of Maharashtra 1984 Indlaw MUM 22; 1985 CRLJ 196
Pralhad Mukinda Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra 2001 Indlaw MUM 907; 2001 (4)
MahLJ 441
Pratap Baburao Shevale v. State of Maharashtra 2016 Indlaw MUM 764; 2016 ALL MR
(Cri) 1292
Prem Prakash Sinha and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2013 Indlaw CTH
32; 2013 (4) M.P.H.T.(CG) 47
Principal Secretary Government of Karnataka Education Department Karnataka
Government Secretariat, Bangalore and others v. Ragini Narayan W/o Late B. S.
Narayan
2010 Indlaw KAR 803
Public v. Budipiti Devasikamani 1927 Indlaw MAD 282; AIR 1928 MAD 196
Pulu Mura v. State of Assam 2003 Indlaw GUW 104; 2004 CRLJ 458
Pundlik S/o Shivaji Satav v. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer,
Nandura 2014 Indlaw MUM 1569; 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2431
R. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Raghavan Nair v. State of Kerala and another 2016 Indlaw
KER 1449; 2016 CRLJ 4765
Radhey Shyam v. State 2010 Indlaw DEL 637; 2010 (169) DLT 389
Raghunath Bhanj Mahendra Bhanja v. State of Orissa 2015 Indlaw ORI 552; 2016 (1)
ILR(Cut) 658
Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan 2004 Indlaw RAJ 48; 2004 CRLJ 2458; 2004 (2) RLW
1113
(1) Rajesh Kumar; (2) State v. (1) State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi); (2) Rajesh Kumar 2009
Indlaw DEL 1187; 2009 (165) DLT 174; 2009 (Supp5) ILR(Del) 65
Raju Babu Patel v. State of Maharashtra 2015 Indlaw MUM 1267
Raju Khoya v. State of Jharkhand 2017 Indlaw JHKD 536
Ram Autar Lodhi Munna v. State of U. P. 2017 Indlaw ALL 529
Ram Charan Bhuyan S/o Kumrua Bhuyan v. State of Assam 2017 Indlaw GUW 244
Ram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh 2003 Indlaw CTH 33; 2004 (1) M.P.H.T.(CG) 1
Ram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh 2003 Indlaw CTH 2; 2003 CRLJ 4692
Ram Sundar Das v. Emperor 1919 Indlaw CAL 113; AIR 1919 CAL 248
Ram Swarup Thakur v. State of Bihar 1999 Indlaw PAT 15; 2000 CRLJ 426
Ramachandran v. State of Kerala 1985 Indlaw KER 40; 1986 CRLJ 1222
Rambharose v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1973 Indlaw MP 97; 1974 MPLJ 406
Ramdayal Pando v. State of Chhattisgarh 2009 Indlaw CTH 364; 2009 (2) CGLJ 113;
2009 CRLJ 3893
Ramdulare Ramadhin Sunar v. State 1958 Indlaw MP 53; AIR 1959 MP 259
Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu v. State, Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount Police
Station
2009 Indlaw MAD 2587
Ramesh Majhi v. State of Assam 2014 Indlaw GUW 525; 2015 (1) GauLR 589
Ramesh Patil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 Indlaw MP 532; 2002(5) M.P.H.T. 241
Ramesh S/o Baburao Patil v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 Indlaw MP 704; 2002 (4)
MPLJ 425
Ramhitram Ramdhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 Indlaw MP 152; 1956 NLJ 304
Ramjoothan v. State of Chhattisgarh 2014 Indlaw CTH 191; 2014 (2) CGLJ 576
Rashid Suhail Siddiqui and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 1993 Indlaw
MP 191; 1994 MPLJ 731
Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1970 Indlaw SC 200; (1970) 3 SCC 533; (1971) SCC
(Cr) 139; AIR 1971 SC 778; 1971 CRLJ 654; [1971] 3 S.C.R. 251
Ratish Kar S/o Radhika Ranjan Kar v. State of Tripura 2012 Indlaw GUW 506
Ravindra Govind Gawas v. State of Maharashtra 2013 Indlaw MUM 1744; 2014 ALL
MR (Cri) 299
Rawata v. State of Rajasthan 2014 Indlaw RAJ 1221
Rustam Ali v. State 1959 Indlaw ALL 126; AIR 1960 ALL 333
Saibur Rahman Barbhuiyan v. State of Assam 2016 Indlaw GUW 594; 2017 (2) GauLR
180
Samsuz Saman Ahmed v. State of Assam 2014 Indlaw GUW 217; 2014 (4) GauLR 797
Sandeep Prabhakar Vadnerkar v. State of Maharashtra 2015 Indlaw MUM 2232; 2016
ALL MR (Cri) 316
Sanjay Madhukar Satam v. State of Maharashtra 2013 Indlaw MUM 345; 2014 ALL MR
(Cri) 276
Sanna Eranna (Accused) v. State of Karnataka 1982 Indlaw KAR 15; 1983 CRLJ 619;
1983 (1) KarLJ 115
Sannatamma v. State of Karnataka 2004 Indlaw KAR 67; 2004 CRLJ 2257; 2004 (5)
KarLJ 496; 2004 (3) RCR(Criminal) 624
Santosh Kumar Sarkar, Accused v. State 1987 Indlaw CAL 21; 1988 CRLJ 1828
Santosh S/o Shridharrao Bhatambrekar v. State of Maharashtra (Copy Served
Through A. P. P., High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad 2017 Indlaw MUM 1430
Sarapada Jamatia v. State 1953 Indlaw GUW 66; AIR 1953 TRI 9
Saraswati Rani W/o Kartik Dehri v. State of Jharkhand 2016 Indlaw JHKD 834; 2016
CRLJ 4877
Sarjerao Rambhau Machale v. State of Maharashtra 2015 Indlaw MUM 904
Sarka Gundusa v. State 1968 Indlaw ORI 49; AIR 1969 ORI 102
Savita Manish Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra, Osmanabad and another 2017
Indlaw MUM 331; 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2822
Selva Vijayan v. State, By Inspector of Police, Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai
2008 Indlaw MAD 423
Senthilkumar v. Inspector of Police Uppiliapuram Police Station, Trihy District 2013
Indlaw MAD 1566
Shankar Lal Dewangan S/o Chaituram Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh 2016 Indlaw
CTH 709; 2016 (2) CGLJ 178
Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State Of Maharashtra 2004 Indlaw SC 268; (2005) SCC
(Cr) 22; (2005) 9 SCC 71; AIR 2004 SC 1966; 2004 CRLJ 1778; JT 2004 (3) SC 211; 2004
(2) RCR(Criminal) 508; 2004(3) SCALE 78; [2004] 2 S.C.R. 868; 2004 (2) SLT 498; 2004
(3) Supreme 652
Shanti Devi v. State 1967 Indlaw DEL 155; AIR 1968 DEL 177
Shivaji Tippanna Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2016 Indlaw MUM 778; 2016 ALL
MR (Cri) 1256
Siba Charan Sabar v. State of Orissa 2011 Indlaw ORI 154; 2012 (1) ILR(Cut) 823
Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra 2008 Indlaw SC 2155; (2009) 1 SCC
124; (2009) 1 SCC (Cr) 471; AIR 2009 SC 97; 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 289; 2009 CRLJ 372;
2009 (1) JCC 30; JT 2008 (11) SC 378; 2009 (1) MLJ(Crl) 452; 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal)
685; 2008(13) SCALE 452; [2008] 14 S.C.R. 320
Siddheswari Bora v. State of Assam 1981 Indlaw GUW 47; 1981 CRLJ 1005
Signalman Kripa Shankar Tiwari v. Union of India and others 2011 Indlaw DEL 3128;
2012 (186) DLT 69; 2012 (2) SLR 796
Singh Bir Subba v. State of Sikkim 2016 Indlaw SIK 58
Singhbhum Thikedar Mazdoor Sangh, Jamshedpur v. State of Bihar and Others 1999
Indlaw PAT 1926; 2001 (1) LLJ 22; 2001 (1) LLJ 221
Sitaram Hiraman Jopale v. State of Maharashtra 2013 Indlaw MUM 500; 2013 ALL MR
(Cri) 3237; 2013 CRLJ 3588
Siyaram v. State of Chhattisgarh 2010 Indlaw CTH 76
Soma Soy S/o Kondro Soy v. State of Jharkhand 2015 Indlaw JHKD 705
State of Assam v. Inush Ali 1981 Indlaw GUW 18; 1982 CRLJ 1044
State of Bihar v. Hemlal Sah S/o Biku Sah 2014 Indlaw PAT 645; 2014 CRLJ 1767
State of Delhi and another v. Jitender and another 2013 Indlaw DEL 377; 2013 (2)
ILR(Del) 1168
State of Goa Through Police Inspector, (Vasco Police Station) Vasco, Goa v. Sameer
Shetye S/o Manik Shetye 2014 Indlaw MUM 1830; 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3929
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jagdish Chand 2010 Indlaw HP 538
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajinder Kumar alias Kaki S/o Rania Ram 2012 Indlaw
HP 521
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajinder Singh S/o Mohan Lal 2012 Indlaw HP 1471
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand 2001 Indlaw SC 20676; (2001) 6 SCC 71;
(2001) SCC (Cr) 980; AIR 2001 SC 2075; AIR 2001 SCW 1903; 2001 (2) CCR 174; 2002
(1) CRJ 792B; 2001 CRLJ 2548; 2001 (2) JCC 92; JT 2001 (5) SC 169; 2001 (2)
RCR(Criminal) 666; 2001(3) SCALE 565; 2001 (4) SCJ 512; [2001] 3 S.C.R. 247; 2001 (3)
SLT 740; 2001 (3) Supreme 588; 2001 (2) UC 41B
State of Kerala v. Madhavan Pillai 1957 Indlaw KER 197; AIR 1958 TRAV-CO 80
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dilip Bankar 2008 Indlaw MP 476; 2009 CRLJ 655; 2008(5)
M.P.H.T. 53
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Godhe Faguwa1973 Indlaw MP 104; 1974 MPLJ 203
State of Maharashtra, Through Pi, Shrirampur, City Police Station, Shrirampur,
Ahmednagar v. Uttam Nandram Somwanshi 2008 Indlaw MUM 348; 2008 ALL MR (Cri)
2197
State of Maharashtra Through Swargate Police Station and another v. Santosh Maruti
Mane and another 2014 Indlaw MUM 1086
State of Maharashtra v. Gourishankar Kawadu Shende 1965 Indlaw MUM 1437; AIR
1966 BOM 179
State of Maharashtra v. Govind Mhatarba Shinde 2010 Indlaw MUM 438; 2010 CRLJ
3586
State of Orissa v. Ananta Murmu 2016 Indlaw ORI 409; 2016 (2) ILR(Cut) 104
State of Orissa v. Rajesh Hembrum 2010 Indlaw ORI 418; 2011 CRLJ 1824; 2011 (1)
ILR(Cut) 205
State Of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram Vishnu Dutta 2011 Indlaw SC 716; (2012) 1 SCC 602;
AIR 2012 SC 1; 2012 (1) RCR(Criminal) 197; 2012 (2) RLW 1144; 2011(13) SCALE 140;
[2011] 15 S.C.R. 485
State Of Rajasthan v. Vidhya Devi 2011 Indlaw SCO 687; (2011) 15 SCC 228; AIR 2012
SC (Supp) 410; 2012 CRLJ 3398; 2012 (5) RCR(Criminal) 706A
State v. Chhotelal Gangadin Gadariya 1957 Indlaw MP 26; AIR 1959 MP 203
State v. Durgacharan Barik Alias Duria 1962 Indlaw ORI 22; AIR 1963 ORI 33
State v. Emerciano Lemos 1969 Indlaw GOA 2; AIR 1970 GOA 1
State v. Fakir Chandra 2009 Indlaw UTT 466
State v. Koli Jeram Duda 1954 Indlaw GUJ 16; AIR 1955 SAU 105
State v. Kundan Dayal 2007 Indlaw UTT 271; 2007 (2) UC 1192
Sudhakaran v. State Of Kerala 2010 Indlaw SC 909; (2010) 10 SCC 582; AIR 2011 SC
265; 2011 (2) CalLT 1; 2011 CRLJ 292; JT 2010 (11) SC 461; 2011 (1) RCR(Criminal) 37;
2010(11) SCALE 332; [2010] 12 S.C.R. 873; 2010 (3) UC 1847
Suk Deo Rai v. State of Sikkim 2014 Indlaw SIK 81
Sumitra Shriram Pimpalkar v. State of Maharashtra 1999 Indlaw MUM 666; 2000 (2)
MahLJ 149; 2000 (Supp) Bom.C.R. 796
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal v.
Durga Charan Barman1960 Indlaw CAL 93; 1961 CRLJ 811
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal v.
Fatik Naskar 1959 Indlaw CAL 198; AIR 1961 CAL 436; 1961 CRLJ 202
Surendera Mishra v. State of Jharkhand 2011 Indlaw SC 23; (2011) 11 SCC 495; 2011
ALL MR (Cri) 623; 2011 CRLJ 1161; 2011 (1) JCC 427; 2011 (1) JhrCR(SC) 219; JT 2011
(1) SC 83; 2011 (1) MLJ(Crl) 776; 2011 (1) RCR(Criminal) 416; 2011(1) SCALE 124;
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 133
Surya Prasad Rout v. State of Orissa 1981 Indlaw ORI 2; 1982 CRLJ 931
T. N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka 2001 Indlaw SC 19933; (2002) SCC (Cr) 103;
(2002) 1 SCC 219; AIR 2001 SC 3828; 2001 (4) CCR 173; 2001 (4) Crimes 334; 2001 (2)
JCC 347; JT 2001 (9) SC 95; 2001 (4) RCR(Criminal) 508; 2001(7) SCALE 256; 2001 (5)
SCJ 322; 2001 (7) SLT 350; [2001] Supp4 S.C.R. 200; 2001 (7) Supreme 658
Tikaram Krishnalal Pandey v. State of Maharashtra 2013 Indlaw MUM 131; 2014 ALL
MR (Cri) 2326; 2013 CRLJ 2410
Tilak Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 Indlaw ALL 1901
Tubu Chetia v. State of Assam 1976 Indlaw GUW 39; 1976 CRLJ 1416
Tulshiram Narayan Pardhi v. State of Maharashtra 2015 Indlaw MUM 1876; 2015 ALL
MR (Cri) 2492
Turam Sundi v. State of Jharkhand 2010 Indlaw JHKD 328; 2011 CRLJ 1872; 2011 (1)
JhrCR 217
Uchhab Sahoo v. State 1988 Indlaw ORI 18; 1988 (2) Crimes 938; 1989 CRLJ 168
Ujagar Singh Ganda Singh v. State 1953 Indlaw PNH 113; AIR 1954 PEPSU 4
Unniri Kannan v. State 1959 Indlaw KER 113; AIR 1960 KER 24
Uttam Nandram Somwanshi v. State of Maharashtra 2016 Indlaw SCO 83; 2017 CRLJ
1103; 2016(3) SCALE 287
Velan Velarasan v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri 2016 Indlaw
MAD 3080; 2016 (4) MLJ(Crl) 364
Velusamy v. State 1984 Indlaw MAD 23; 1985 CRLJ 981
Venkatesh Alias Tiger Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka 2004 Indlaw KAR 190; 2005
CRLJ 1112; 2005 (1) KarLJ 612
Vidhya Devi v. State of Rajasthan 2004 Indlaw RAJ 50; 2004 CRLJ 2332; 2004 (2) RLW
1261
Vijay Pradap Singh v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram 2016
Indlaw MAD 2393; 2016 (2) MLJ(Crl) 485
Virendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2010 Indlaw CTH 145
Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka 2003 Indlaw KAR 465; 2004 CRLJ 4901; 2004 (3)
RCR(Criminal) 98
Vithal v. State of Maharashtra 2008 Indlaw MUM 1328; 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3097

Vitthal s/o. Kisan Dodke v. State of Maharashtra 2006 Indlaw MUM 479; 2007 ALL MR
(Cri) 348; 2007 (Supp) Bom.C.R. 355
(Vodde) Subbigadu v. Emperor 1925 Indlaw MAD 319; AIR 1925 MAD 1238
Vyankatesh Maruti Arandekarnaik v. State of Maharashtra 2000 Indlaw MUM 677;
2000 (3) MahLJ 127
Yosef S/o Bhanudas Athawale v. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station,
Badnapur
2015 Indlaw MUM 799; 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 616

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BOOKS:

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

JOURNALS:
  Section of 84, IPC: An Analysis,Dr. Prateek Rastogi , JIAFM, 2006
 Math SB, Kumar CN, Moirangthem S. Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and
Future. Indian J Psychol Med. 2015;37(4):381–387. doi:10.4103/0253-7176.168559
 Defence of Insanity in Indian Criminal Law, K. M. Sharma, Journal of the Indian Law
Institute, Vol. 7, No. 4 , Indian Law Institute, (OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1965), pp.
325-383, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43949854, 16-04-2019 05:33 UTC

WEBSITES:
 http://medind.nic.in/jal/t06/i4/jalt06i4p180.pdf
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43949854.pdf?refreqid=excelsior
%3A0d47951e05f589d442957c1abcb43be3
 http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.pdf
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676201/
 http://www.ijemr.net/DOC/
DefenceOfInsanityUnderIndianLegalSystemAnAnalysis.PDF
 https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-mnaghten-rule/