Scribd
Upload
143 views2 pages

Supreme Court Ruling on Insanity Defense

The Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale for the murder of his wife. [1] Bhosale, a police constable, had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and was undergoing regular psychiatric treatment since 1992. [2] At trial, two medical doctors testified that Bhosale suffered from psychotic delusions and loss of sleep due to his mental illness. [3] The Court found reasonable doubt that, due to his unsound mental state, Bhosale was incapable of understanding the nature of killing his wife or that it was wrong. Therefore, he was entitled to the insanity defense under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction was overturned.

Uploaded by

Riya Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
143 views2 pages

Supreme Court Ruling on Insanity Defense

The Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale for the murder of his wife. [1] Bhosale, a police constable, had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and was undergoing regular psychiatric treatment since 1992. [2] At trial, two medical doctors testified that Bhosale suffered from psychotic delusions and loss of sleep due to his mental illness. [3] The Court found reasonable doubt that, due to his unsound mental state, Bhosale was incapable of understanding the nature of killing his wife or that it was wrong. Therefore, he was entitled to the insanity defense under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction was overturned.

Uploaded by

Riya Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Judgement

Supreme Court of India


Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State Of Maharashtra
PETITIONER:
Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/2002
BENCH:
[Link] & H.K. Sema.

Facts:
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.
[Link] was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 Diagnosed
as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
[Link] was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.
5. 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
[Link] of the appellant, at the time of commission of the offence, is the
main plea that was urged before the court.
Held:
When a plea of legal insanity is set up, 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 was doing
what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for
ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was
committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled
to the benefit of s.84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the
circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime.
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.
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 [Link] Courts must also
adopt a broader view of the Insanity and introduce the concept of diminished
responsibility.

You might also like