2015-16

FINAL DRAFT
Criminal law
“Case comment: Ratan Lal vs. The state of
Madhaya Pradesh”

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. K. A. Pandey Shobhit Mani Gopal

Asstt. Prof. (Law) Roll-129 (3rd sem)

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow Sec-B

Table of Contents Page no.

 Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………….......3

 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….4

 Background …………………………………………………………………….……………………….4

 Indian Law on Insanity …………………………………………………………………..….…….5

 Essential Ingredients of sec. 84 of IPC …………………………..……………………..….7

 Principle laid down in Sundar Manjhi case …………………………………………….…7

 Burden of proof ………………………………………………………………..…………….………8

 Analysis ……………………..………………………………………………………………………….…8

 Conclusion …………………………………………………………….…………………………………9

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide (Dr.
K. A. Pandey) for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this thesis. The blessing, help and guidance given by him time to
time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents & members of Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohiya National Law University for their kind co-operation and encouragement which help
me in completion of this project.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to all those people who gave me
attention and their invaluable time.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my friend and classmates in developing the synopsis
and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

3|Page
INTRODUCTION:

In this case analysis researcher will try to elaborate the concept of insanity as defence with the help
of case laws and will explain the judgement Ratan Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh1 .

In this case Ratanlal (appellant) on 22 January 1965, set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of
Nemichand. On being asked why he did it, the accused said; ‘I burnt it; do whatever you want’. The
accused was arrested on 23 January 1965 and he remained in police custody till February 2, 1965.
When it was found that the accused needed medical examination, and accordingly the District
Magistrate ordered that he be medically examined. No explanation has been given why he was kept
in police custody all that time. There is no evidence either to indicate as to his condition from the
time of his arrest to the time when his case was referred for medical examination.
The police made it impossible for the appellant to prove his mental condition at the time of the
incident by keeping him in their custody from January 23 to February 2, 1965, not having him
examined and not sending him to judicial custody earlier where he would have been examined by the
jail doctor.
On February 22, 1965 a Civil Surgeon reported that Ratan Lal should be send for expert opinon and
finally on March 29, 1965 the psychiatrist of the hospital reported that the accused remained silent,
was a case of maniac depressive psychosis, and needs treatment. The report declared the accused to
be a lunatic in terms of the Indian Lunatic Act, 1912. The issue before the courts was whether
insanity might be used as defence against a charge of mischief by fire with intent to cause damage
under the IPC, s. 435. The crucial point in this case was whether unsound mind may be established at
the time of commission of the act. The Supreme Court held that the person was insane and acquitted
him.

BACKGROUND:

Mens Rea is an essential element in every crime. There may be no crime of any nature without an
evil mind. There must be a mind at fault to constitute a criminal act. The concurrence of act and
guilty mild constitutes a crime2. This theory has its basis in the latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum

1
AIR 1971 SC 778, 1971 (0) BLJR 1034, 1971 CriLJ 654, (1970) 3 SCC 533, 1971 3
SCR 251

4|Page
nisi mens sit rea’ which means that the act does not makes one guilty unless he has a guilty intention.
Lord Diplock in the case of Swet vs. Parsley3 said, ‘An act does not make a person guilty of a crime
unless his mind be so guilty’.
But in the case of insane person, he may not understand the nature of the act. He does not have the
sufficient mens rea to commit a crime. Since a criminal intent is an indispensible element in every
crime, a person incapable of entertaining such intent may not incur guilt4. An insane person is not
punished because he does not have any guilty mind to commit the crime. The English law on insanity
is based on the Mc’Naghten rules and the Indian Law that is codified in the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC), sec. 84, based on the Mc’Naghten rules.

Insanity or unsoundness of mind is not defined in the act. It means a disorder of the mind, which
impairs the cognitive faculty; that is, the reasoning capacity of man to such an extent as to render
him incapable of understanding consequences of his actions. It means that the person is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or of realising that the act is wrong or contrary to law. A person,
although of unsound mind, who knows that he is committing an unlawful act, may not get the benefit
of IPC, s. 84. The nature and extent of the unsoundness must be so high so as to impair his reasoning
capacity and that he may not understand the nature of the act or that it is contrary to law. It excludes
from its preview insanity, which might be caused by engendered by emotional or volitional factors.

There are four kinds of person who may be said to be “non compos mentis” (not of sound mind):
1. An idiot – an idiot is one who from birth had defective mental capacity. This infirmity in him
is perpetual without lucid intervals.
2. One made so by illness – by illness, a person is made non compos mentis. He is therefore
excused in case of criminal liability, which he acts under the influence of this disorder.
3. A lunatic or a madman – lunatics are those who become insane and whose incapacity might
be or was temporary or intermittent. A lunatic is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain
period and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason.
4. One who is drunk – this is covered under IPC, sec. 85.

INDIAN LAW ON INSANITY-

The Indian law relating to insanity has been codified in the IPC, sec. 84 contained also the general
exceptions. Indian Penal Code, s. 84: ‘Acts of a person of unsound mind— Nothing is an offence

2
Srivastava, O.P., Principles of Criminal Law, 4th ed., 2005 at pp 228.
3
1970 AC 132.
4
Bishop Criminal law as quoted in Basu’s Indian Penal Code, 9th ed. 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 314.

5|Page
which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to
law’.

IPC, s. 84 and the Mc’Naghten rule:

IPC, s. 84 deals with the law of insanity on the subject. This provision is made from the Mc’Naghten
rules of England. In the draft penal code, Lord Macaulay suggested two sections (66 and 67), one
stating that ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a person in a state of idiocy’ and the other
stating that ‘nothing is an offence which a person does in consequence of being mad or delirious
at the time of doing it’ to deal with insanity.
The Law Commissioners in replacing these two provisions by IPC, s. 84 have adopted a brief and
succinct form of the Mc’Naghten rules. It has been drafted in the light of the replies to the second
and third questions, which is generally known as Mc’Naghten rules.
But, IPC, s. 84 uses a more comprehensible term ‘unsoundness of mind’ instead of insanity. Huda
says the use of the word ‘unsoundness of mind’ instead of insanity has the advantage of doing away
with the necessity of defining insanity and of artificially bringing within its scope different
conditions and affliction of mind which ordinarily do not come within its meaning, but which
nonetheless stand on the same footing in regard to the exemptions from criminal liability5.
To invoke the benefit of IPC, s. 84, it must be proved that at the time of commission of the offence,
the accused was insane and the unsoundness of mind was of such a degree and nature as to fulfil any
one of the test laid down in the provision. These are:
Firstly, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. It covers two situations, namely,
automatism and mistake of fact due to unsoundness of mind as a defence. Secondly, that the accused
was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from understanding that what he was doing was
either wrong or contrary to law. It covers those cases wherein a man by reason of delusion is unable
to appreciate the distinction between right and wrong.

5
Huda, S.S. Principles of Law of Crimes in British India, as quoted in K.D. Gaur, ‘Commentary on Indian Penal Code’,
1st ed. 2006, Universal, pp. 271.

6|Page
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SEC.84 OF IPC:

Unsoundness of Mind:

The term unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the code. But it has been equated by the
courts to mean insanity. This section only deals with incapacity of mind which is a result of
‘unsoundness of mind' or ‘insanity'. It is not every type of insanity which is recognized medically
that is given the protection of this section. Medical insanity is different from legal insanity. The
insanity should be of such a nature that it destroys the cognitive faculty of the mind, to such an extent
that he is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
This section will apply even in cases of fits of insanity and lucid intervals. But it must be proved in
such cases that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was surfing from a fit of
insanity which rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act.

Principles laid down in Sundar Manjhi case:

The Cuttuck High Court has laid down certain principles in the case of Sundra Majhi6-
1. Every type of insanity is not legal insanity; the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as to
render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or
contrary to law.
2. The court will presume the absence of such insanity
3. The burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused, though it is not as heavy as on the
prosecution.
4. The court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when
the offence was committed
5. In reaching such a conclusion the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed the
crime are relevant considerations
6. The prosecution in discharging its burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has merely
to prove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of that everyone knows the law
and the natural consequences of his act.

6
1971 Cut LT 565

7|Page
Burden of proof:
The principle that the court follows is that ‘every person is sane unless contrary is proved’29. The
onus of proving insanity is one the person who is pleading it as a defence. In the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Ahamadullah7, it was observed that burden of proof is on the accused. The
Supreme Court also upheld the principle in the case of S.W. Mohammed vs. State of Maharastra8 and
said that the accused have to prove that he is insane. However, this requirement of proof is not heavy
as on the prosecution to prove the offence and is based on balance of probabilities.

ANALYSIS:
The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of Shyamlal9 and Than Singh10, and the behaviour of the
accused on that day came to the conclusion that the accused was insane. Court also relied on the
certificates issued by the doctors. He further found support in the absence of motive for the crime.
Court also relied on the fact that the appellant's khalayan adjoined the khalayan which was set on fire
by him and if the appellant had been sane he would not have taken the risk of having his own
khalayan burnt.
M.P High Court set aside Trial Court’s judgement and gave its own which was based on rigid case
laws. Its judgement was based on the non-availability of medical reports by an expert and they

7
1961 INDLAW SC, AIR 1961 SC 998
8
AIR 1972 SC 216
9
D.W1,son-in-law of the appellant stated that "the accused was not feeling well for 2-3 years. He was in such a condition
that if he is sitting will remain sitting. If he is to go then he will go and if he wishes to fall in the river then he will fall.
Such was the conditions of his mind that he used to set fire in his own clothes and house." He further stated that on
the day of the incident the appellant did not allow anybody to enter life house and had put a lock on the house and his
children took their food outside, and the accused did not talk to anybody. He further stated that "prior to this incident the
accused was being taken to Bhopal after tying him for the treatment of mind. He was also taken to Bhavera but the
accused did not improve."
10
D.W. 2, (the appellant is his maternal uncle) stated that the appellant "used to do whatever he thought. He used to run
away wherever he liked. He used to jump in the river also. He used to enter the house of anybody. He used to lock his
house. His children used to lie hungry outside. He used to set fire in his clothes also. On the day of occurrence the
condition of the accused was worst. He did not speak to anybody on that day."

8|Page
considered the statements of both important witnesses11 as irrational statements given to protect the
accused.
They also relied on the fact that no independent witness was present or any evidence showing the
accused had any mental treatment before committing the crime.
H.C also discarded medical evidence produced before it and stated that when the accused was
presented before the court he was a sane person.
Supreme Court criticised H.C’s judgement and acquitted the appellant by saying that at the time of
incident he was a person of unsound mind under sec. 84 IPC. S.C considered all aspects, it took
practical approach to reach the judgement.
This judgement will be very important for the cases where accused was in police custody and police
didn’t took him for mental examination in time, which would have helped the defence to collect the
important evidences and prove insanity easily12.

CONCLUSION:

The basic and most important point which has to be proved by the accused is during the time of
commission of act he was insane and completely lost cognitive faculties of his mind and difficulty
before the court was that there was no medical evidence showing that Ratan Lal was insane during
the commission of act. Sometimes it is not possible for the accused to produce any evidence which
shows he was insane, then the relevancy of state of mind after the commission of act increases.
Keeping this in mind and the facts of the case S.C gave its decision accordingly, they relied on the
witnesses and the medical report to reach final judgement to make sure justice is done.

11
Shyamlal D.W1 and Than Singh D.W2
12
Jai lal v. Delhi Administration, 1969 Cri LJ 259, held that where the question is whether the accused was suffering
from such incapacity at the time of the commission of acts, the state of his mind before and after the crucial time of
commission of offence is relevant.

9|Page