Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v.

State of Maharashtra

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL NOIDA

RESEARCH PROJECT ON Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State Of Maharashtra SUBMITTED TO SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL NOIDA

Faculty Guide Prof. Vikram Singh

Submitted By Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LL.B(A) IV SEM)

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 1

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

DECLARATION
I Abhishek Sindhwani, student of BBA,LL.B(A)IV Semester of Prestige Institute of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDAhereby declare that the report titled Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State Of Maharashtra is submitted by us in the line of partial fulfillment of course objectives for the BBA,LL.B I assure that this synopsis is the result of my own efforts and that any other institute for the award of any degree or diploma has not submitted it.

Date- 2ndApril, 2012 Place: Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA Abhishek Sindhwani

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 2

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Abhishek Sindhwani student of B.B.A.LL.B, Fourth Semester of Symbiosis law School, Noida has successfully completed his Project report. We have prepared this report Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State Of Maharashtra under my direct supervision and guidance.

Date- 2nd April, 2012 Place- NOIDA

Prof.Vikram Singh (Faculty Guide)

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 3

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a great pleasure for me to put on records my appreciation and gratitude towards Dr. C.J. Rawandale, Director for his immense support and encouragement all through the preparation of this report. I would like to thank our faculty Prof. Vikram Singh (Project Guide) for his valuable support and suggestions for the improvement and editing of this project report. Last but not the least, I would like to thank all the friends and others who directly or indirectly helped us in completing our project report.

Date- 2nd April, 2012 Place- NOIDA FourthSemester)

Abhishek Sindhwani (B.B.A.LL.B,

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 4

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1...PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2.FACTS OF THE CASE 3 ISSUES INVOLVED 4.. JUDGEMENT 5. RATIO DECIENDI 6 CONCLUSION

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 5

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State Of Maharashtra
(2003) 7 SCC 748

PETITIONER: Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, H Sema Submitted by: Abhishek Sindhwani

Procedural History:
The appellant has been found guilty by the Sessions Court of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the High Court,appeal was filed again in supreme court, on grant of leave.

Facts Of The Case:

1. The appellant was a Police Constable. He and Surekha were married in the year 1987 2. On the morning of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrel between husband and wife. While Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her with grinding stone on her head. The appellant was immediately taken by the police to the quarter guard. Surekha was taken to the Hospital. She was found dead. After usual investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of murder of his wife. 3.The weak motive of killing of wife being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable. 4.The appellant has a family history his father was suffering from psychiatric illness. 5. Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part. 6. Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 6

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

7.Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital. 8.Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment. 9. In support of his contention he relied on past psychiatric treatment and the testimony of two medical doctors who prepared his medical record and stated that he suffered from suspicious ideas, persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and was a paranoid schizophrenic 10.Insanity of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, is the main plea that was urged before the court.

Issues Involved:
Issue : Whether the charge of murder under section 302 of IPC is vitiated on account of insanity as provided by section 84 of IPC? Elements required for the commission of the crime: Actus reus Mens rea

In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. Motive itself does not constitute any crime . It has to be companied by criminal intention which is very much required for the commission of the crime . Criminal intention simply means the purpose of design or doing an act forbidden by criminal law without just cause or excuse. The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act- actus reus combined with the wrongful intention means mens rea . This principle is embodied in the maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea , meaning an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally blameworthy. A mere criminal intention followed by a prohibited act cannot constitute a crime. Similarly mere actus reus ceases to be crime as it lacks mens rea. Intention and motive are often confused as being one and the same. The two, however, are distinct and have to be distinguished. The mental element of a crime ordinarily involves no reference to motive. A bad motive cannot be the reason for convicting a person. The apex court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arun Kumar1

2003)2 SCC 202

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 7

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

emphasised that proof of motive in the absence of proof of guilt of an accused does not warrant his conviction. In the present case , the prosecution may succeed in stating a pertinent motive to the act but the requisite mens rea for section 302 IPC has not been proved as required by the Code.

Unsoundness of mind Section 84 of Indian Penal Code states that unsoundness of mind is a defence to a criminal liability. It has been accepted as a defence to a criminal charge on the theory that one who is insane has no mind and hence cannot have the necessary mens rea to commit a crime. Unsoundness of mind is commonly termed insanity and according to medical science, is a disorder of the mind which impairs the mental faculties of a man. In other words, insanity is another name for mental abnormality due to various factors and exists in various degrees. To invoke the benefit of section 84, it must be proved that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was non compos mentis and that unsoundness of mind was of such a degree and nature as to fulfil one of the tests laid down in the section. These are:Firstly, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and, Secondly, that the accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from understanding that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. In Phulabhai v. State of Maharashtra2, the Bombay High Court went even further to grant the plea of insanity to the accused, who was suffering from chronic and incurable illness. The accused in an attempt to commit suicide jumped into a well along with her child resulting in the latters death. The plea of insanity was advanced though the medical evidence was absent in the case. The court granted the benefit of plea of unsoundness of mind on the basis that the absence of medical evidence did not justify the exclusion of common sense. In State v. Mohinder Singh3, where the evidence disclosed that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and this state existed before and after the occurrence, it was held that the defence of insanity had been established. Further it was stated that before coming to the conclusion of any case , the relevant circumstances , like behaviour of the accused before the commission of the offence and his behaviour after the commission of the offence, should be taken into consideration.

2 3

(1976) CrLj 1519 (1983) 2 SCC 274

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 8

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujrat4,this Court has held that even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, 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 offence, 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated the legal position regarding the burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity in the following propositions:(i) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests upon the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial; (ii) There is a rebuttal presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down in Section 84; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidenceoral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party in civil proceedings, that is, to prove his defence by a preponderance of probability; (iii) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, 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 resting on the prosecution has not been discharged. When a plea of insanity is set up by the accused, the burden of proof is on him to prove it. But a man, who is insane will not be able to defend himself properly and effectively. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to look after the defence of the accused in the light of the evidence on record. In Kuttappan v. State of Kerala5, Material placed before the court may not some times be sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act; however, it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or the other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself, either actus reus or mens rea. If it raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court whether the accused had the mens rea required for the offence, accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. In such an event, prosecution must be taken to have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of insanity holds water due to the fact that the previous insanity of the accused has been ratified by expert opinion ,admissible under sec 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4 5

AIR 1964 SC 1563 1986 CrLj 271(Ker)

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 9

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

Kuttappan v. State of Kerala6, so long as the material placed before the court induces a doubt in the mind as to the nature of mens rea or actus rea , the benefit of doubt accrues to the defence. Even though a plea may not be established as required by the Code. Also the fact that a pre- concert to administer poison has still not been established , the same has been explained below.

Inefficacious discharge of Burden of Proof by the prosecution: In the present matter before this honourable court , even if the plea of insanity is not taken cognizance of by the honourable court , the prosecution has still not established the guilt of the accused beyond doubt as required by the Code. Since the case involves administering of poison, the prosecution has to establish the following essentials as laid down in the case of Dharambir Singh vs State of Punjab.7 That the accused died because of the poison That the accused had the poison in its possession That the accused had the opportunity to administer the poison And all the above essentials have to be fulfilled so as to establish the guilt of the accused, non fulfilment of either of the above mentioned essential would be potent enough to induce doubts as regards to the liability of the defence . Like wise in the present case the prosecution has failed to discharge the same.

JUDGEMENT:
Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, the view of judges was that appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act, so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. They were unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that 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, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.

6 7

1986 CrLj 271(Ker) Criminal appeal no. 98 of 1958, decided on nov.4, 1958.

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 10

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

RATIO DECIDENDI:
The defence of insanity is recognized in India by virtue of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:Sec.84: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act an opinion of an expert on a matter of science, technical or special knowledge is admissible evidence to guide the trier of the fact to understand the scientifically recognized principles with reference whereto a question of fact has to be determined. Thus, where a plea of insanity has been set up as a defence, the trier of the facts may seek the assistance of an expert but the decision cannot be delegated to the expert and has to be by the trier of the facts i.e. the Court. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of unsoundness of mind in IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence with reference to his medical condition by production of medical evidence and other relevant factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour
Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A)) Page 11

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

preceding, attending and following the crime. Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka8, in which it has been held as follows: Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadull9, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, 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. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought.

8 9

(2002) 1 SCC 219 AIR 1961 SC 998

Page 12

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

CONCLUSION:
In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, 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. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought. The issue of medico-legal insanity which is often introduced in courts and creates a lot of doubt regarding the condition of the insane and his mindset during the commission of crime. There are three compartments of the mind - controlling cognition,emotion and will. IPC, s. 84 only exempts one whose cognitive faculties are affected. The provision is regarded as too narrow, and makes no provision for a case where ones emotion and the will are so affected as to render the control of the cognitive faculties ineffectual. The Courts must also adopt a broader view of the Insanity and introduce the concept of diminished responsibility.

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 13

Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosle v. State of Maharashtra

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
www.westlaw.com www.legalperspectives.in www.indialawjournal.com
http://crimes.indlaw.com/search/articles/?fffde2f4-ea4e-42ef-b94b-bdd9b94092d4 Gaur K.D ,Fourth Edition ,A Text Book on IPC

Abhishek Sindhwani (BBA,LLb.(A))

Page 14