Section 84 IPC case laws || Unsoundness of mind || section 84 || IPC section 84 || General exception || insanity

     Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that “Act of a person of unsound mind-Nothing is an offence 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”.  This means that if a person is suffering from serious mental disease or is of unsound mind at the time of committing offence, then he was free from criminal liability. In this case burden of proof lies on the accused. When such defect is caused by some disease of mind, a person is said to be insane.

R. v. Arnold 1724, this case is one of the important and historical case of this section. According to this case if a person could not distinguish between good and evil and he did not know nature of the act yet he pleaded insanity in his defense.

M’NAGHTEN RULES: - Daniel M’Naghten was tried for the murder of private secretary of Robert Peel (P.M.). During his insanity he killed Sir Robert Peel. According to the evidence he was lost his power of control. The accused was acquitted on the ground of insanity. His acquittal was become the subject od debate in the House of Lords. The question and answer of debate are also known as M’Naghten Rule.

Essential elements of this Section: -

1. Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.

2. Such person must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

3. Act was wrong or contrary to law.

4. Incapacity must be reason of unsoundness of mind.

5. Incapacity of nature must exit at the time of doing act.

A man who by reason of unsoundness of mind or insanity lost his power of control caused any offence he was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Code. This statement was said in the case of Hakim shah, 1887.

The accused was unable to differentiate between right and wrong even if he did not know that it was contrary to law or the (visa versa). The unsoundness of mind must be exist at the time of commission of such offence and the burden of proof of unsoundness of mind is on the accused (Geron Ali, 1940).

In Srikant Anand Rao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, 2002, insanity of the appellant at the time of the commission of crime was pleaded in his defense. A accused suffering from mental disease and was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The accused was under regular treatment of mental disease. Unsoundness of mind before and after the incident would be relevant fact to same appellant. He was under an attack of mental ailment. Thus, he (appellant) was entitled for the benefit of section 84 of the Code.

Types of unsound mind : -

1. Idiot-who is of non-sane memory form his birth.

2. Lunatic- mental disorder only at certain period.

3. Non-compos- illness is exempted from criminal liability.

4. Drunkenness- voluntary drunkenness is no excuse. 

Legal Inanity : -

In Tabu Chetia v. State of Assam, 1976 the meaning of unsoundness of mind is unable to knowing the nature of the act or incapable of knowing that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Legal insanity is a good defense.

In case of Someshwar Bora v. State of Assam, 1981, the accused was not entitled for the benefit of this section of the Code because he left the place of murder immediately after committing the crime and remembered clearly. Accused was knowing the nature of the act before committing the crime.

DURHUM RULE: - In Durhum v. United States , the accused was charged of house breaking and he pleaded insanity of his defense. The accused was suffering from mental disease at the time of committing the act. He would be responsible for the unlawful and if there is no casual connection between such mental disorder and the act. This rule means there must be a casual relationship between the mental disorder and the act.

Section 84 of IPC in hindi || unsoundness of mind || insanity

 

यह लेख भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860, की धारा 84 की व्याख्या पर प्रकाश डालता है, यह धारा ऐसे व्यक्तियों से सम्बंधित है जो मानसिक रूप से पीड़ित एवं ऐसे व्यक्ति जो यह भेद करने में असमर्थ हैं कि क्या उनके लिये उचित अथवा क्या कानून के विरुद्ध है ऐसे व्यक्तियों को अपराधिक दायित्वों से छूट प्राप्त होती है।

भारतीय दंड संहिता (आईपीसी) की धारा 84 उन मामलों से संबंधित है जहां कोई व्यक्ति मानसिक रूप से अस्वस्थ रहते हुए कोई कार्य करता है, जिसमें उसे आपराधिक दायित्व से छूट प्राप्त होती है। इस धारा के अनुसार जो व्यक्ति मानसिक बीमारी से पीड़ित है तथा उस कार्य की प्रकृति को समझने में असमर्थ है जो वह करने जा रहा है तब इस स्थिति में उसे आपराधिक दायित्वों से मुक्त रखा जायेगा।

इस धारा के आवश्यक तत्व :-

1.कृत्य किसी विकृत चित्त के व्यक्ति द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए।

2. कृत्य ऐसे व्यक्ति द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए जो व्यक्ति कार्य की प्रकृति को जानने में अक्षम हो।

3. किया गया कार्य गलत या कानून के विपरीत होना चाहिए।

4. अक्षमता मन की अस्वस्थता का कारण होना चाहिए।

5. मन की अस्वस्थता कार्य करते समय होनी चाहिए।

आर बनाम अर्नोल्ड 1724, यह मामला इस संहिता की धारा 84 के महत्वपूर्ण और ऐतिहासिक मामलों में से एक है। इस मामले के अनुसार यदि कोई व्यक्ति अच्छे और बुरे के बीच अंतर नहीं कर सकता है और वह कार्य की प्रकृति को समझने में अक्षम है, तो वह खुद के बचाव के लिए इस धारा का सहारा ले सकता है।

भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 84 से संबंधित अगर मामलों की बात करें तो उन मामलों में से एक प्रसिद्ध मामला एम नाटन का मामला है जो 1843 में घटित हुआ था, इस मामले में डेनियल एम नाटन ने ब्रिटिश प्रधान मंत्री की हत्या करने का प्रयास किया, लेकिन प्रधानमंत्री के बजाय उनके सचिव की हत्या कर दी। इस मामले ने यह सवाल उठाया कि क्या मानसिक बीमारी से पीड़ित एक अभियुक्त को उसके कार्यों के लिए जिम्मेदार ठहराया जा सकता है। अदालत ने चिकित्सा संबंधी सबूतों पर विचार किया तथा उसके बाद इस निर्णय पर पहुंचे कि एक व्यक्ति को तब तक समझदार माना जा सकता है जब तक यह साबित न हो जाये कि वह अपराध के समय मानसिक बीमारी के तहत काम कर रहा था। अपने कार्य की प्रकृति और गुणवत्ता को समझने में असमर्थ था। वह यह भी नहीं जानता था कि जो वह कार्य कर रहा है वह कानून के विरुद्ध है। इस मामले के ये सभी नियम एम नाटन के नियम के नाम से जाने जाते हैं।

एक अन्य मामला दयाभाई छगनभाई ठक्कर बनाम गुजरात राज्य (1964) के मामले में न्यायालय द्वारा यह आदेश पारित हुआ कि रुक-रुक कर या आंशिक पागलपन भी धारा 84 के तहत एक वैध बचाव हो सकता है। इस फैसले के अनुसार अगर अपराध करते समय आरोपी मानसिक बीमारी से पीड़ित था तथा वह अपने कृत्य की प्रकृति को समझने में असमर्थ था, वह चित्त की अस्वस्थता की रक्षा का हकदार होगा।

भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सुरेंद्र मिश्रा बनाम झारखंड राज्य (2009) के वाद में इस बात पर जोर दिया गया कि मानसिक अस्वस्थता के बचाव को साबित करने का भार आरोपी पर होगा। अदालत ने कहा कि केवल मानसिक विकार का अस्तित्व ही किसी व्यक्ति को आपराधिक जिम्मेदारी से मुक्त नहीं करता है अपितु यह सिद्ध होना अति आवश्यक है कि अभियुक्त, मानसिक विकार के कारण, अपराध की प्रकृति और परिणामों को समझने या अपराध के समय सही और गलत के बीच अंतर करने में असमर्थ था।

एक और प्रसिद्ध मामला जिसने धारा 84 की व्यख्या को विस्तृत किया, यह कर्नाटक राज्य बनाम कृष्णप्पा (2000) का मामला है। इस मामले में मानसिक बीमारी से पीड़ित एक व्यक्ति ने मानसिक तनाव के दौरान अपनी पत्नी की हत्या कर दी। अदालत ने कहा कि चित्त की अस्वस्थता के बचाव के सफल होने के लिए, यह साक्ष्य दिया जाना अति आवश्यक है कि अभियुक्त अपने कार्य की प्रकृति को जानने में असमर्थ था। अदालत ने इस बात पर भी जोर दिया कि सबूत का भार अभियुक्त पर है,।

एक अन्य वाद श्रीकांत आनंद राव भोसले बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य, 2002, में अपराध करते समय अपीलकर्ता के पागलपन की दलील उसके बचाव में दी गई थी। एक आरोपी पैरानॉयड सिज़ोफ्रेनिया के रोग से पीड़ित था। आरोपी के मानसिक रोग का नियमित इलाज चल रहा था। घटना से पहले और बाद में मानसिक अस्वस्थता का आरोपी ने सहारा लिया। इस प्रकार, वह (अपीलार्थी) संहिता की धारा 84 के लाभ का हकदार था।

डरहम नियम: - डरहम बनाम संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में, आरोपी पर घर तोड़ने का आरोप लगाया गया था और उसने अपने बचाव में पागलपन का सहारा लिया था। आरोपी घटना के समय मानसिक रोग से ग्रसित था। वह गैरकानूनी के लिए जिम्मेदार होगा और अगर इस तरह के मानसिक विकार और अधिनियम के बीच कोई आकस्मिक संबंध नहीं है। इस नियम का अर्थ है कि मानसिक विकार और क्रिया के बीच एक संबंध होना अवश्य चाहिए।

आईपीसी की धारा 84 की व्याख्या उपर्युक्त मामलों द्वारा विस्तृत और उसकी सीमा को समझने का प्रयास किया गया। उपर्युक्त सभी मामलों के निर्णय अपराध के समय अभियुक्त की मानसिक स्थिति के मूल्यांकन की आवश्यकता पर जोर देते हैं और अभियुक्त को यह साबित करने पर भी जोर देते हैं कि वे अपने कार्यों की प्रकृति और परिणामों को समझने में असमर्थ थे या मानसिक बीमारी के कारण यह कानून के विरूद्ध था। अतः उपर्युक्त मामलों के निर्णयों द्वारा यह साबित हो जाता है कि अगर कोई व्यक्ति मानसिक बीमारी से पीड़ित है तो वह आपराधिक न्यायिक अभिक्रिया से मुक्त कर दिया जायेगा।

Article 368 || Article 368 of Indian Constitution || Amendment of Constitution

 THE AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India. Constitution of India is a fine mixture of rigidity and flexibility. 

In this article, we will be exploring the extent to which the government (Parliament) can amend, the process of amendment, the essential judicial questions pertaining to it, and various landmark cases in hopes of answering these questions. 

For the purpose of amendment the various Articles of the Constitution are divided into three categories :-

1. Amendment by simple Majority

2. Amendment by special majority

3. By special majority and ratification by States

1. Amendment by simple Majority :- Article 5, 169 and 239-A are placed in this category. 

2. Amendment by special Majority :- All constitutional amendments, which are not covered by first and third categories are placed in this category. Special Majority not less than 2/3 of the members of that House present and voting.

3. Special Majority and Ratification by the States :- Ratification by not less then ½ of the State Legislatures. The following provisions require such ratification by the States :-

1. Election of the President (Article 54 and 55).

2. Extent of the Executive powers of the Union and States (Articles 73 and 162).

3. Articles dealing with Union and State Judiciary (Articles 124 to 147, 214 to 231, 241).

4. Distribution of Legislative powers between Union and State (Article 245-255).

5. GST Council (Article 279-A).

6. Representation of State in Parliament (Schedule IV).

7. Any of the Lists of the seventh Schedule.

8. Article 368 itself.

Procedure for Amendment:-

A bill to amend the constitution can be placed before any House of the Parliament. When this bill is passed by majority of the total number of members of each house (more than 50 percent) and at least 2/3 majority of the members present and voting who will be bound to his assent. After the assent of the President on the Bill, the constitution stands amend.

Amendment of fundamental rights:-

In the case of “Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951, Article 31-A, and 31-B of the Constitution was challenged on the ground of prohibition of Article 13(2) and the court held that the word “law” in Article 13(2) includes only ordinary law made in exercise the legislative power and does not include constitutional amendments.

In “Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1965”, the validity of the Constitutional (17th amendment) Act, 1964 was challenged. The SC held that the word “Amendment of the Constitution” means Amendment of all the provision of the Constitution.

In “Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1971”, the validity of the Constitutional (17th amendment) Act, 1964 was again challenged. The Supreme Court by majority of 6:5 “prospectively overruled” its earlier decision in the case of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh and held that Parliament had no power from the date of decision to ament Part III of the Constitution. Chief Justice Subba Rao supported this judgement on the following grounds :-

1. The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is derived from Article 245 of the Constitution and procedure of amend is related from the Article 368 of the Constitution.

2. An amendment if violates any of the Fundamental Rights it may be declared void.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:- Justice Subba Rao applied the doctrine of “prospective overruling” and held that 1st , 4th and 17th Amendment will be valid. This doctrine means all cases decided before the Golak Nath’s case shall remain valid.

24th Amendment Act, 1971:-

• A new clause (4) was added to Article 13 which stated that ‘nothing in this Article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368’.

• The marginal heading of Article 368 was changed in place of ‘Procedure for amendment of the Constitution’. The new heading ‘Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure, therefore’. 

• A new sub-clause added in Article 368 which provides that “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, in the exercise of its Constituent Power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article”.

• It substituted the words “it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon” for the words “it shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill.” 

• By this amendment added a new clause (3) to Article 368 which deals with “nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this Article”. 

Thus, the 24th Amendment not only resorted the amending power of the Parliament but also extended its scope by adding the words “to amend by way of the addition or variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article”.

Conclusion :-

Amendment has become necessary for the point of development of the State in every sphere. The 24th Amendment of the Constitution was the subject of debate at that time. In Indian Constitution, the balance of legislative power is vital and the power of amendment conferred to parliament to after such regulations is often considered an important one. The SC held that the 24th Amendment Act is Constitutional. The Constitution should be able to serve the needs of the society.

Basic Structure and Limitation of Amending Power:-

The validity of the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, was challenged in the case of “Keshvanand Bharati v. State of Kerala” popularly known as the “Fundamental Right’s case”. The petitioners had challenged the validity of the ‘Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963’ but during the pendency of the petition the Kerala Act was amended in 1971 and was placed in 9th Schedule by 29th Amendment Act.  This case was handled by special bench of 13 Judges. This case is one of the important case in the history of India and established the doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution. In this case, they considered the constitutionality of the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendment of the Constitution. The court held that under Article 368 of Constitution, Parliament is not empowered to amend the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and again said that first part of the 25th Amendment Act is valid but second part of this Amendment Act is invalid.

The expression “Amendment of the Constitution” in Article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provision of the Constitution within the broad contours on the Preamble and the Constitution.

In “Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan and Ans, 1975” the SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down clause (4) of Article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament’s amending power as it destroyed the Constitution’s basic features.

The SC has added the following features as basic features of the Constitution to the list of basic features laid down in the case of ‘Keshvanand Bharati’.

1. Rule of law

2. Judicial Review

3. Democracy, which implies free and fair election

It has been held that “the Jurisdiction of the SC under Article 32, is the basic feature of the Constitution”.

In “Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, 1980”, the Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, on the ground that these clauses destroyed the essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. Limited amending power is a basic structure of the Constitution. Since these clauses removed all limitations on the amending power and thereby conferred an unlimited amending power, it was destructive of the basic feature of the Constitution.

In "S.P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India", the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 323-A, and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 as the necessary changes suggested by the Court were incorporated in the Act. It held that though the Act has excluded the judicial review of the High Court in service matters under Articles 226 and 227, but as it has not excluded judicial review under Articles 32 and 136, the Act is valid. The amendment does not affect the basic structure of the Constitution.