[S.22 BNS] “Erratic Behaviour, Classic Signs Of Psychotic Disorder”: Chattisgarh HC Overturns Murder Conviction Over Accused's Unsound Mind

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 100 (two counts).

Noting that there was absence of motive and that the act was not driven by “rational intent”, but by a “disturbed mental condition”, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,

“The sudden, unprovoked and brutal nature of the attack on close family members, coupled with the statements made by the appellant like “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga,” and his erratic behavior, align with classic signs of a psychotic episode typically found in cases of mental disorder involving delusions or hallucinations. Thus, the provisions of 22 of the BNS (Section 84 IPC) will come to the rescue of the appellant, as he was not knowing that what he was doing was wrong or the same is contrary to law. In order to ascertain the same, the imperative circumstances and the behavior preceding, attending and following the crime are the main consideration. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC is not sustainable.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the appellant's conviction and order of sentence handed down by the Trial Court for the murder of his father and grandmother.

The appellant submitted that he had received head injuries after falling from terrace during COVID-19 period and was undergoing psychiatric treatment.

Hence, he argued that was he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident which prevented him from knowing the nature of his act and consequently was protected by the mandate of Section 84 of IPC/Section 22 of BNS (defence of unsoundness of mind) Further, he argued that non-examination of his mental state created a serious infirmity in the prosecution's case and his past, present and future conduct should also have been considered.

Supporting the conviction, the State argued that the Trial Court had carefully examined the medical records of the appellant before concluding that the case does not warrant protection of Section 84 of IPC.

Court's Findings:

The Court referred to the Merg Intimation lodged by the mother of the appellant (complainant) where she alleged that the appellant was a mental patient whose psychological state had not been good for the past year and was undergoing treatment at a mental hospital. The Court also referred to the statements of witnesses which clearly established that the appellant had ongoing psychiatric illness and that the Investigation Officer had made no efforts to collect or verify the medical condition of the appellant nor was any medical board constituted to assess his mental state at the time of the incident. The Court also took note of the fact that the appellant was locked in a room due to fear of violent or unpredictable behavior, indicating recognisable signs of mental disorder within the household.

Further, the Court referred to a host of judgments, including Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007)— where the Supreme Court cast a duty on the IO to subject the accused to medical examination in cases where insanity is pleaded; and Rupesh Manager (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim (2023)— where the Supreme Court reiterated that standard of proof to establish the unsoundness of mind under Section 84 is only a 'reasonable doubt' and that it is not necessary to establish medical unsoundness of mind.

Against this backdrop, the Court stated,

“… despite Merg Intimation clearly referring to the appellant as a mental patient, no certificate from the treating psychiatrist was obtained. The trial court merely relied on a report from the inquiry under Section 328 CrPC (which assesses competency to stand trial), not the mental status at the time of the act which is the legally relevant consideration under Section 22 BNS. The burden of proof of legal insanity is not as high as that in the regular criminal trial; it is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt, and once prima facie materials support the plea, the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut the same.”

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction, the Division Bench concluded,

“… we are of the view that this is a case of more than a reasonable doubt about the insanity or unsoundness of mind of the appellant and as such the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Even the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of accused/appellant beyond the reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution itself has negated the theory by their own evidence on record. Hence the conviction under Section 302 & 323 of IPC deserve to be set aside.”

Case Details:

Case Number: CRA No. 1229 of 2024

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order