Criminal Appeal No 135 of 1968
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 1 1968 of the Madhya Praesh High Court Gwalior Bench in
Criminal Appeal No 143 of 1966
R L Kohli and J C Talwar for the appellant
I N Shroff for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed a aginst the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench allowing the appeal of the State and convicting the appellant for having committed an offence punishable under section 435 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year
The only point involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant was a person of unsound mind within section 84 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of the incident
The Magistrate held that he was not liable to punishment as he was insane at that time and did not know that he was doing anything wrong or anything contrary to law
The High Court on the other hand came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant did not fall within the exception created by section 84 IPC
It is now well settled 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 of on the accused
See State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ahmadullah 1
In D C Thakker vs State of Gujarat2 it was laid down that there is a rebuttable presu mption that the accused was not insane when he committed the crime in the sense laid down by section 84 of the Indian Penal Code  the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence al documentary or circumstantial but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil pro cedings
 It was further observed  The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was circumstances which preceded attended and followed the mind as to be entitled to the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded attended and followed the crime
The learned counsel contends that if regard is had to the circumstances which preceded attended and followed the crime it would be clear that the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
1 1961 3SCR583
2 1964 7SCR361
253 The prosecution case is that on January 22 1965 the appel lant set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of Nemichand at the time of the setting of the sun
He was caught at the spot while setting fire
On being asked why he did it the accused said I burnt it and do whatever you want The accused was arrested on January 23 1965 and he remained in police custody till February 2 1965 when it was found that the accused needed medical examination and accordingly the District Magistrate ordered that he be medically examined
No explanation has been given why he was kept in police custody all that time
There is no evidence either to indicate as to his condition from the time of his arrest to the time when his case was referred for medical examination
These facts were within the knowledge of the police and we should have expected that the prosecution would lead evidence regarding his condition during this time
Further the police made it impossible for the appellant to prove his mental condition at the time of the incident by keeping him in their custody from January 23 to February 2 1965 not having him examined and not sending him to judicial custody earlier where he would have been examined by the jail doctor
On February 20 1965 V section Vaidya Assistant Surgeon
Civil Hospital Vidisha reported to the Jailor Sub Jail Vidisha as follows  Subject In Ref
to your letter No 295 dated 8 2 1965
Sir Ratanlal Prisoner was kept under observation as indoor patient during this time
He was keeping silent he never used to reply any question so in my opinion he should be refd
to some specialist for further investigation and needful
 On February 22 1965 Y D Kamran Civil Surgeon Vidisha
reported as follows Shri Ratanlal undertrial was examined by me
He does not appear to be deaf or dumb but is mentally retarded
He should be referred to Stiperintendent Mental Hospital Gwalior for expert opinion On March 29 1965 Dr B Shah
Psychiatrist and SuperintendentMental Hospital Gwalior reported as follows This is to certify that Shri Ratanlal so Kishanlal who has been kept under observation in this hospital from 18 3 1965 to 29 3 1965 is a person of unsound mind in terms of Indian Lunancy Act 1912
He is not dangerous 254 andor violents by reason of Lunancy and thus unfit to be at large
The report is based on the following facts observed here  1 Remains depressed
2 Does not talk
3 He is a case of Maniac depressive
4 Psychosis and needs treatment
 On April 28 1965 another report was given that he was still a person of unsound mind in terms of Indian Lunancy Act 1912 but was better though still confused and further that treatment was being continued and it may take 4 to 6 weeks more for recovery
The defence also led evidence as to his condition before the incident in question
Shyamlal D W 1 son in law of the appellant stated that the accused was not feeling well for 2 3 years
He was in such a condition that if he is sitting will remain sitting
If he is to go then he will go and if he wishes to fall in the river then he will fall
Such was the conditions of his mind that he used to set fire in his own clothes and house
 He further stated that on the day of the incident the appellant did not allow anybody to enter his house and had put a lock on the house and his children took their food outside and the accused did not talk to anybody
He further stated that prior to this incident the accused was being taken to Bhopal after tying him for the treatment of mind
He was also taken to Bhavera but the accused did not improve
 In cross examination it was brought out that prior to the setting of fire the accused was neither got admitted in the government hospital nor any report was lodged in the police station No cross examination was directed to ascertain the nature of his illness or to bring out that he was otherwise sane
Another witness Than Singh DW 2 the appellant is his maternal uncle stated that the appellant used to do whatever he thought
He used to run away wherever he liked
He used to jump in the river also
He used to enter the house of anybody
He used to lock his house
His  children used to lie hungry outside
He used to set fire in his clothes also
On the day of occurrence the condition of the accused was worst
He did not speak to anybody on that day
 The witness however admitted that the accused had not been taken to Government hospital
The Trial Court also mentioned that Moolchand PW 3 Madora PW 4 and Dhanna PW 6 admitted that the appellant remained in the khalyan throughout the period that the grass was burning till the chowkidar took him to thana and did not utter a word and did not try to run away
255 The Trial Court relying on the evidence of Shyamlal DW 1 Than Singh DW 2 and the behaviour of the accused on that day came to the conclusion that the accused was insane
He also relied on the certificates issued by the doctors mentioned above He further found support in the absence of motive for the crime
He also relied on the fact that the appellant s khalayan adjoined the khalayan which was set on fire by him and if the appellant had been sane he would not have taken the risk of having his own khalayan burnt which was most likely
The High Court with respect erred in differing from the Trial Court
The High Court observed that the appellant had not examined in defence any expert in mental diseases to substantiate his plea of legal insanity
It is expecting rather a great deal from a poor villager that he should produce experts in mental diseases specially in view of the certificates issued by the Medical authorities after he was arrested
The High Court further erred in holding that the medical reports were of no evidential value
it is true that the reports speak of the mental state of the accused at the time when the reports were issued but the High Court failed to note that the appellant was in police custody from January 23 1965 and the police could have produced evidence to show that he was absolutely sane till the day when they sent him for medical examination
 The High Court thought that the evidence of the two defence witnesses only suggested an irrational behaviour on the part of the accused
The High Court failed to note that according to DW 2 the appellant used to set fire to his own clothes and house and this could hardly be called irrational it is more like verging on insanity
The High Court also felt it rather unsafe to rely on the testimony of the two defence witnesses because such evidence could always be procured
It was also impressed by the fact that there was no independent witness forthcoming nor was there any evidence showing that the accused was taken to Bhopal or Gwalior for treatment
The High Court observed Apart from this these witnesses merely suggest that there was irrational behaviour on the part of the accused
But it has not been proved that he entertained any homicidal tendencies
The evidence adduced is merely of conduct not confirming to the accepted pattern of human behaviour
Such evidence is inadequate to establish that there was such an impairment of cognitive faculties of the accused as to render him legally insane
 256 With respect it is not necessary that every insane person should have homicidal tendencies
In this case he is not charged for an offence involving homicide but arson
Although the High Court discarded the medical evidence it took account of its own observations when it stated We had an opportunity to observe the accused who was produced before us by the learned counsel and he appeared to be a man of normal understanding
We also find that in answering questions which were put to him by the court under section 342 Cr PC the accused showed intelligence and care With great respect these are irrelevant considerations
The appeal was heard on April 25 1968 and the incident occurred on January 22 1965
A person can surely improve within three years
We are inclined to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate
We hold that the appellant has dis charged the burden
There is no reason why the evidence of Shyam Lal DW 1 and Than Singh DW 2 should not be believed
It is true that they are relations of the appellant but it is the relations who are likely to remain in intimate contact
The behaviour of the appellant on the day of occurrence failure of the police to lead evidence as to his condition when the appellant was in custody and the medical evidence indicate that the appellant was insane within the meaning  of section 84 IPC We accordingly allow the appeal and acquit the appellant of the offence under section 435 IPC because at the time of the incident he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
His bail bond shall stand cancelled
GC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant set fire to grass lying near a khalyan
He was arrested next day From February 23 1965 when he was arrested to February 2 1965 he was in police custody and thereafter sent to jail
The Assistant Surgeon the Civil Surgeon and the Psychiatrist of the mental hospital to which he was referred reported that he was depressed and silent
According to the Psychiatrist he was a lunatic in terms of the Indian Lunacy Act 1912
At is trial under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code two of his relatives appeared as defence witnesses and testified that he was mentally unsound
The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the finding that the appellant fell within the general exception in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
The High Court in appeal filed by the State reversed the judgment
In appeal by special leave HELD  It is now well settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime was committed
The burden of proving this lies on the accused though the burden is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil preceedings
252 E State of Madya Pradesh vs Ahmadulla  and D C Thakker vs State of Gujarat   referred to
In the present case the appellant had discharged the burden
There was no reason why the defence witnesses should not be believed
They were no doubt relations of the appellant but it is the relations who are likely to remain in intimate contact
The behaviour of the appellant on the day of occurrence failure of the police to lead evidence as to his condition when the appellant was in custody and the medical evidence indicated that the appellant was insane within the meaning of section 84 IPC256 D The High Court was wrong in drawing an adverse inference against the accused on the ground that he had not produced any expert medical evidence in defence
This could not be expected from a poor villager specially in view of the certificates issued by the medical authorities after he was arrested
2 55 C The High Court s observation that the appellant appeared to be of normal understanding and the fact that he had given intelligent answers
to questions under section 342 Cr
PC were irrelevant considerations in view of the time that had elapsed since the alleged commission of the offence
256 B C 252