Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Of Rajasthan vs Vidya Devi

Supreme Court4 August 2011Gyan Sudha Misra · Harjit Singh Bedi

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A person who was suffering from insanity at the time of committing an act is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and evidence of prolonged hospitalization for psychiatric treatment both before and after trial, together with continued abnormal behaviour when produced before court, constitutes circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish such insanity at the time of the act.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

Crl.A. No. 426 of 2005
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2005

STATE OF RAJASTHAN ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

VIDHYA DEVI ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the State of

Rajasthan and have gone through the judgment of the High

Court very carefully. The facts indicate that the

accused respondent was suffering from insanity on the

date of the incident and the facts leading to this

conclusion have been set out in extenso in the High

Court's judgment. It has been highlighted that the

incident happened on the 18th of February, 1996 and even

before the challan had been filed on the 26th April,

1996, the accused had been sent to the Medical Hospital,

Jaipur for treatment and that she had remained admitted

in the hospital for treatment till 12th October, 1999

when she had been produced before the concerned Court on

Crl.A. No. 426 of 2005 2

that day and it was found that she was still behaving in

an abnormal manner and on which she was again sent to the

Medical Hospital, Jaipur and remained under treatment

from 12th October, 1999 till 20th November, 2001. It is,

therefore, obvious that the circumstances of the case

show that the respondent was suffering from insanity and

was, therefore, entitled to claim the benefit under

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. We are, therefore,

not inclined to interfere in this matter.

2. Dismissed.

.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

.........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 04, 2011.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free