iminal Appeal No 38 of 1965
141 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 28 1964 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench in Criminal Appeal No 40 D of 1963
section N Prasad for the appellant
H R Khanna and section P Nayyar for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
The Additional Sessions Judge Delhi convicted the appellant under sec
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life
The Judge also convicted the appellant under sec
324 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and directed that the two sentences would run concurrently
An appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab
The High Court dismissed the appeal
The appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave
The appellant lives at Sat Nagar in Delhi
On November 25 1961 at 145 pm he entered the house of his neighbour Somawati and stabbed her daughter Leela aged 1 12 years with a knife
He inflicted five stab wounds one on the back trunk one on the right gluteal region two on the right thigh and one on the chest
The injury on the back of trunk proved fatal
Leela died in the hospital at 4 pm
The appellant then returned to his house and bolted the front door
A crowd collected near the front door and raised an alarm
After some time the appellant went out by the back door and stabbed another neighbour Parbati and then Raghubir who tried to intervene on her behalf
The injuries were simple incised wounds Rabhubir and others tried to apprehend him
He then ran back to his house bolted the door and started throwing brickbats from the roof
He was later arrested by the police
All these facts are proved by unimpeachable evidence
One Dhani Ram was the father of Leela
Dhani Ram his wife Somawati his daughter Leela and his brother Baburam lived together in the same house
Indra is the appellant s sister
The appellant and his father suspected that Baburam was prone to making illicit approaches to Indra
On this account the appellant had a long standing grudge against Baburam
This enmity is said to be the motive of the attack by the appellant on Leela a member of the family of Baburam
The motive for the attack on Parbati is not clear
Raghubir was attacked because he tried to intervene
The defence plea was of insanity
The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court concurrently rejected this defence
142 We may briefly notice the evidence bearing on the plea of insanity
Since 1958 the appellant was an employee in the Stores Branch of the Northern Railway Headquarters in Baroda House New Delhi
In 1958 and 1959 he had altercations with other clerks in the office
On May 20 1959 his superior officer observed that he was prone to lose temper in no time
In his moments of excitement he became dangerous and used to hit his colleagues with anything that he could lay his hands on
But at the time of his greatest excitement he could distinguish between right and wrong
After May 1959 he worked at his desk as a normal man
In March 1960 he again quarrelled with another clerk
He was suspended and sent for medical examination
At this stage he was suffering from mental illness
On October 12
1960 he was examined by a psychiatrist who found that he exhibited symptoms of acute schizophrenia and showed disorder of thought emotion and perception of external realities
The psychiatrist said that he was harbouring certain delusions
The nature of the delusions is not stated
It is not proved that the appellant suffered from any particular delusion or hallucination
The appellant was put on a drug named largactil and was given convulsive electrotherapy treatment
On January 12 1961 he was cured of his illness and was advised to join his duties
On resuming his duties the appellant worked in the office in the normal manner
There is some evidence that on the morning of November 25 1961 and the preceding night the appellant complained that he was unwell and took medicine
But on the morning of November 25 he went to his office as usual
He was late in attendance and was marked absent
He applied in writing for one day s casual leave stating that he had an urgent piece of work at home
Nobody noticed any symptoms of mental disorder at that time
He left the office at about 1130 am and returned home alone
At 145 pm he stabbed Leela Parbati and Raghubir with a knife
He concealed the knife and a search for it has proved fruitless
At 245 pm the investigating officer arrived on the spot arrested the appellant and interrogated him
He was then found normal and gave intelligent answers
On the same date he was produced before a Magistrate
His brother was then present but the Magistrate was not informed that he was insane
On November 27 he was interrogated by an Inspector
It does not appear that he was then insane
On November 30 the appellant s brother filed an application before the committing magistrate stating that the appellant was insane at the time of the occurrence
The appellant was later remanded to judicial custody
On receipt of another application from his brother he was kept under medical observation from December 16 to December 23
On December 19 the medical 143 officer noted that the appellant was indifferent to his surroundings and personal cleanliness preoccupied in his thoughts muttering to himself making meaningless gestures losing track of conversations given to delayed and repetitive answers and unable to give detailed account of incidents leading to his arrest
On Decemher 23 he was declared to be a lunatic though not violent
The psychiatrist noted that the appellant had a relapse of schizophrenia and was suffering from disorder of thought emotion and loss of contact with realities
From his attitude and manner of talk he was found to be aggressive
On September 6 1962 the psychiatrist reported that the appellant was cured and was in a position to understand proceedings in court
The commitment order was made on January 4 1963
The trial started in February 1963
The appellant was sane at the time of the trial
The group of ailments dubbed schizophrenia is discussed in James D Page s Abnormal Psychology Ch
XI pages 236 to 261 and Modi s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 14th ed pages 349 to 401
Schizophrenia is a general term referring to a group of severe mental disorders marked by a splitting or disintegration of the personality
The most striking clinical features include general psychological disharmony emotional impoverishment dilapidation of thought processes absence of social rapport delusions hallucinations and peculiarities of conduct
The question is whether the appellant is criminally responsible for the acts done on November 25 1961
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code says  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 To establish that the acts done are not offences under sec
84 it must be proved clearly that at the time of the commission of the act the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of either knowing that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law
The question is whether the appellant was suffering from such incapacity at the time of the commission of the acts
On this question the state of his mind before and after the crucial time is relevant
There is evidence of a medical character that between October 12 1960 and January 12 1961 he was suffering from schizophrenia
He was completely cured of this disease on January 12 1961 when he resumed his normal duties
He had another attack of this disease in the middle of December 1961
The attack lasted till September 1962 when he was found to be normal again
But it is to be observed that the defence witnesses do not say that even during these two periods the appellant was incapable of discriminating between right and 144 wrong or of knowing the physical nature of the acts done by him
After the appellant was cured of the disease on January 12 1961 he was found to be normal
He had a highly strung tem perament and was easily excitable
But there is positive evidence that even at the moment of his greatest excitement he could distinguish between right and wrong
From January 12 upto November 24 1961 he attended his office and discharged his duties in a normal manner
On the morning of November 25 1961 his mind was normal
He went to and from his office all alone
He wrote a sensible application asking for casual leave for one day
At 145 pm he stabbed and killed a child and soon thereafter he stabbed two other persons
On his arrest soon after 245 pm he gave normal and intelligent answers to the investigating officers
Nothing abnormal in him was noticed till December 16 1961
The thing in favour of the appellant is that though he had a motive for attacking Baburam no clear motive for attacking the child Leela or Parbati is discernible
But there is clear evidence to show that he knew that his act of stabbing and killing was wrong and contrary to law
He concealed the weapon of offence
The knife could not be recovered in spite of searches
He bolted the front door of his house to prevent arrest
He then tried to run away by the back door
When an attempt was made to apprehend him he ran back to his house and bolted the door
He then tried to disperse the crowd by throwing brickbats from the roof
His conduct immediately after the occurrence displays consciousness of his guilt
He knew the physical nature of stabbing
He knew that the stabbing would kill and maim his victims
On a comprehensive review of the entire evidence the two courts below concurrently found that the defence of insanity under sec
84 was not made out
We are unable to say that the verdict of the courts below is erroneous
If a person 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 he cannot be guilty of any criminal intent
Such a person lacks the requisite mens rea and is entitled to an acquittal
But it is not established in the present case that the appellant was suffering from this incapacity
The general burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the actus reus but also the mens rea
The prosecution satisfactorily discharged this burden
The appellant was not insane at the time of the killing and stabbing and he knew the consequences of those acts
We must hold that he is criminally responsible for the acts
In the result the appeal is dismissed
RKPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
From 1958 the appellant was a Railway employee and often lost his temper and had altercations with other clerks in the office
In October 1960 he was found to be suffering from a mental illness as he exhibited symptom of acute schizophrenia and showed disorder of thought emotion and perception of external realities
He was treated for and was cured of this illness by July 1961 when he resumed his duties
On the morning of November 25 he went to office as usual but as he was late in attendance he was marked absent He applied in writing for one day s casual leave and returned home
No one noticed any symptoms of any mental disorder at that time
Just after 1 o clock he entered his neighbour s house and stabbed and killed a girl 1 12 year old and later also stabbed and injured two other persons with a knife
He was thereafter arrested and interrogated on the same day when he gave normal and intelligent answers
After his arrest and upon a medical examination the appellant was declared to be lunatic though not violent and the psychiatrist found that he had had a relapse of schizophrenia
On September 6 1962 he was reported as cured and was thereafter committed for trial in February 1963
The trial court convicted him under sections 302  and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment
During the trial and in the subsequent appeal to the High Court the defence plea was one of insanity which was concurrently rejected by both Courts
On appeal to this Court by special leave
HELD dismissing the appeal The appellant was not insane at the time of the killing and stabbing and knew the consequences of his acts
He must therefore be held criminally responsible for his acts144 H To establish that the acts done were not offences under section 84 it must be proved clearly that at the time of the commission of the acts the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law
There was clear evidence that on the morning of November 25 the appellant s mind was normal and also that he knew that his act of stabbing and killing was contrary to law
He concealed the weapon of offence
He bolted the front door of his house to prevent arrest
He then tried to run away by the back door
When an atttempt was made to apprehend him he an back to his house and bloted the door
He then tried to disperse the crowd by throwing brickbats from the roof
His conduct immediately after he occurrence displaced consciousness of his guilt