Dashrath Patra Appellant Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.821/2025

No Lunatic Can Be Convicted As He Can't Exercise Right To Defend Under Article 21 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, on the ground that there was more than a reasonable doubt regarding his mental condition at the time of the offence.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that a lunatic cannot be held criminally liable as he is not in a position to defend himself, and the right to defend oneself is part of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

 “The law lays down that no act done by a lunatic is an offence. The reason is that a lunatic is not in a position to defend himself. Right to defend a charge for an offence is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, the Court observed.

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 352 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for an incident that occurred on 27th September, 2018. On that day, the deceased Asam Gota and a prosecution witness, Fagu Ram Karanga, were cutting grass in an agricultural field. The appellant arrived at the spot armed with an iron pipe and assaulted the deceased on his head. When the witness fled, the appellant chased him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

Before the High Court, the appellant contended that there was sufficient evidence to show he was of unsound mind on the date of the incident. However, the High Court rejected this argument on the basis of a medical examination conducted on 7th December 2023, which showed the appellant to be normal.

In the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel referred to the depositions of prosecution witnesses who had stated that the appellant's mental condition was unstable at the relevant time. The counsel relied on the decisions in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat and Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim to argue that the standard of proof required to establish a defence under Section 84 IPC is only a reasonable doubt.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the initial burden to prove insanity lies on the accused. It submitted that the burden is not discharged unless there is evidence regarding the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident. It was also submitted that since there was no medical evidence from the time of the offence, and the medical examination in December 2023 showed the appellant was normal, the High Court rightly concluded that the appellant failed to discharge the

The Court referred to the judgment in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar, which lays down that while the prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can rebut the presumption of sanity by placing relevant evidence, with a standard of proof akin to that in civil proceedings. The Court also reiterated that even if legal insanity is not conclusively proved, the evidence may still raise a reasonable doubt about the presence of mens rea, which would entitle the accused to acquittal.

The Court noted that the principle has been affirmed in Rupesh Manager (Thapa) and Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, where it was held that the accused must establish legal insanity and not merely medical insanity. The conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident must be examined to determine if he knew the nature or wrongfulness of the act.

In Bapu Alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court had held that the accused is protected if he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law. It also held that when there is a history of insanity, it is the duty of the investigator to subject the accused to medical examination and place that evidence before the Court.

From these precedents, the Court concluded, “Therefore, the burden to prove legal insanity is on the accused. It is enough if a reasonable doubt is created about the mental state of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. The standard of proof to prove insanity is only a reasonable doubt.”

In the present case, the Court analysed the depositions of prosecution witnesses. PW1, though not an eye-witness, stated in cross-examination that the appellant had attacks of madness and that villagers knew of his mental condition. PW2, an eye-witness, also stated that the appellant's mental condition was not good and that he used to abuse and fight with villagers.

Similar statements about the appellant's mental instability were made by other prosecution witnesses in cross-examination. The Court noted that these depositions related to the appellant's condition before and after the incident, and the prosecution did not seek re-examination of these witnesses.

The Court observed that it was surprising that the prosecution did not move the Trial Court for a medical examination of the appellant after such evidence had come on record. The Court found the medical examination conducted in December 2023, more than five years after the incident, to be meaningless in determining the appellant's condition at the time of the offence.

The Court concluded that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly created more than a reasonable doubt about the appellant's sanity at the time of the incident. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to him. It held that the impugned judgment could not be sustained and set it aside.