Chunni Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 577 - S.84 IPC - Insanity - Murder - S. 165 Evidence Act

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 84 -What Section 84 IPC provides is legal insanity as distinguished from medical insanity. A person is said to be of unsound mind on whom criminal liability cannot be fastened if at the time of commission of the act, he is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. It may also be noted that the expression “unsoundness of mind” or the word “insanity” has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code, though these have been used interchangeably. In the absence of a precise definition of these terms, insanity or unsoundness of mind has been variously understood by courts in varying degrees of mental disorder and the courts have applied this attribute to give the benefit of doubt or otherwise, depending on the facts and circumstances of the cases. However, mere odd behaviour or certain physical or mental ailments affecting the emotions or capacity to think and act properly have not been construed to be “unsound mind” within the scope of Section 84 of the IPC. All kinds of insanity as are understood are not covered under Section 84 of IPC but only such acts, when committed by a person who was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing which is either wrong or contrary to law are concerned. As a consequence, only such mental or medical condition which affects or disturbs the faculty of the person which renders him unable to know the nature of act committed or that he was doing which he did not know that it was wrong or contrary to law can be given the benefit of insanity under Section 84 IPC, and thus escape criminal liability. (Para 33)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 165 ; Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 84- Re: Plea that the accused was under the influence of certain invisible force or where the prosecution is also totally unable to explain circumstances which motivated him or her to commit the act of homicide or where the evidence on record unambiguously show totally inexplicable but highly intriguing, strange and unusual circumstances under which the crime was committed - If such circumstances emerge in course of the trial which remain inexplicable and bizarre as in the present case, the court, in our opinion, even if the accused opts to remain silent, should ask such questions to the witnesses, as may be necessary to elicit the truth by invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act, since the court has to be satisfied that the offence alleged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt not only in respect of actusreas but also mens rea. This assumes great importance when the accused pleads existence of certain circumstances which are beyond his/her control and which may indicate unsoundness of mind even temporarily, incapacitating the accused to take a conscious and informed decision. It is for the salutary reason that if the accused at the time of commission of crime was incapable of making conscious and informed decision or was suffering from certain mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind even if temporarily, it may put a question mark on the “intention” of the accused in committing such a crime, in which event, the benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused as regards proof of intention and mens rea, as it would determine the nature of conviction and sentence which may be imposed. (Para 63-64)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 299-304 - One of the criteria to determine, in any given case, as to whether the act amounts to “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” is the presence or absence of intention of the offender. If the “intention” to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or the knowledge, which obviously has to be a conscious one, that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act “without any excuse” for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury, comes out aloud and clear in the case, it would be most appropriate to categorise it as a case of “murder” under Section 300 IPC in which event, penal provision of Section 302 IPC would be attracted. On the other hand, if the “intention” in causing the death or to causing such bodily injury is not so clear, the case will fall under the less stringent category of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” as punishable under Section 304 IPC. (Para 21)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 165 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 161,162- Even though the statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to the embargo placed under Section 162 CrPC, however, the power of the Trial Court under Section 165 Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on the statement under Section 161 CrPC to any witness or party at any stage to secure the ends of justice. (Para 54)

Criminal Trial - Were the motive which can provide the basis for the intention appears to be totally missing, the court has to be very circumspect in drawing the inference of the proof of the presence of intention. (Para 47)

LawLens - AI-Driven Legal Research for Indian Laws

Discover AI-powered legal research tools for Indian law professionals

AI-Driven Legal Research for Indian Laws