The Court is concerned with the legal insanity and not the medical insanity

All the love from James

The Court is concerned with the legal insanity and not the medical insanity

Rabia Basaria | Panjab University, Chandigarh | 1st February 2020

Hari Singh Gond  vs.  State of Madhya Pradesh  (Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2007)

FACTS:-

  • Herein, Harilal gond , deceased and Maternal grandfather-in-law of accused; Motilal, deceased’s Samdhi and Father of Shyamlal; shyamlal, deceased’s son-in-law and son of Motilal; Hari Singh, Accused and Shyamlal’s son-in-law.
  • On 23-2-1995, Shyamlal brought accused from Singanpuri to Mohda for treatment.
  • On 25-2-1995, deceased, Motilal and Accused were sleeping in the same room and Shyamlal in his own room. Around 3-3:30 Shyamlal got up after hearing the shouting of accused who was pushing the door. Then accused assaulted Shyamlal with Lathi and latter run away.
  •  After sometime he (Shyamlal) observed that his house was burning then he along with villagers went to his house and caught the accused.
  • They observed fire in the room where Harilal was sleeping and found that Harilal was burnt and has died. 
  • Motilal told Shyamlal that firstly accused assaulted him (Motilal) and when he ran away then he assaulted Harilal due to which he died and put some grains on fire which were lying in that room. 
  • Post mortem report reveals that deceased’s whole body was burnt and all the injuries were ante-mortem.

ISSUE:-

Whether the section 84 of the IPC covers the medical insanity.

HELD:-

It is held that every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from the criminal liability. A distinction is to be made between legal and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity only. The point whether the benefit should be given or not u/s 84 depends upon the time when the offence take place. In the case court held that it would be dangerous to admit the defence of  insanity merely from the character of crime. Mere absence of motive for a crime can not be considered a proof of legal insanity merely because the act is atrocious. The Court in Sherall Wali Mohammed Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 1972 Cr.lj 1523(SC)), held that mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irrisitible impulse or compulsive behavior of a psychopath affords not u/s 84 IPC. 

Therefore in the present case the Court upheld the decision of Trial and High Court that section 84 IPC has no application.

560 315 LexForti Legal News Network
Share

Leave a Reply

Avatar

LexForti Legal News Network

LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.

All stories by : LexForti Legal News Network
About Author
Avatar

LexForti Legal News Network

LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.

Consult
Leave this field blank
SUBSCRIBE only if you like the content!