LAndmark judgmentS

i. Vivian Rodrick v. The State of West Bengal (1969) 3 SCC 176

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 1968
Coram: J.M. Shelat,V. Bhargava and C.A. Vaidialingam JJ.
Author: C.A. Vaidialingam, J.
Decided on: April 30, 1969


Full text available here

Facts
The accused was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by the trial court. One of the contentions raised by the amicus curiae of the Appellant was that the Calcutta High Court acted illegally by proceeding with the hearing when the medical report showed that the appellant was of unsound mind.

Judgment
In view of the medical reports regarding the appellant that the appellant was of unsound mind, the hearing of the appeal should have been postponed by the Division Bench till such time as the appellant was certified to be fit to give proper instructions to his counsel to contest his appeal. When the report is that an accused-appellant is of unsound mind, it is reasonable to infer that he is incapable of making his defence. The Court, in the circumstances, is bound to afford him the same protection to which he would have been entitled had he been of unsound mind at the time of the trial. The Court has inherent power to postpone the hearing of the appeal until such time as the appellant should be fond to be of sound mind again and thus capable of making his defence.

ii. State of Gujarat v. Manjuben R/CC/2018

Type: R/Criminal Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2018 with R/Crl. Appeal No. 474 of 2019
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, A.C. Rao, JJ.
Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Decided on: March 18, 2019


Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. During appeal, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that much before the criminal case came to be committed to the Sessions Court, the fact of the accused appellant being mentally ill and suffering from psychiatric problems had come on record. However, even at the time when the charge came to be framed, the trial court remained oblivious of the mental condition of the accused.
Judgment
If on the basis of the materials brought on record, it appears that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, if satisfied of the fact,find accordingly and in such case the trial shall have to be postponed. Even if the accused had not raised such a plea and even if the defence counsel had not bothered to look into it, still if the materials on record in the form of the documents disclose something about the mental condition of the accused, then it is the duty of the trial court to look into the materials and ascertain the capacity of the accused to enter the defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The satisfaction of the trial court should be recorded in so many words. The provisions of Section 329, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not embrace an idle formality but are calculated to ensure to an accused person a fair trial which cannot obviously be afforded to an insane person and the non-observance of those provisions must be held to convert a trial into a farce. It is not difficult to appreciate that such a requirement would be mandatory in nature. The proceeding against a person of unsound mind and holding him guilty of criminal offence would be clearly violative of the guarantee contained under Article 21 of the Constitution, 1950 that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty without following the procedure established by law. The trial court ignored or overlooked something very important and the omission on the part of the trial court has rendered the judgment and order of conviction and sentence susceptible to the complaint that the same is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

i. Shatrughan Chauhan and Ors v Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1

Type: Writ Petitions (Criminal) No. 55 of 2013 with Nos. 34, 56, 132, 136, 139, 141, 187-88 and 190-93 of 2013
Coram: P. Sathasivam, C.J, Ranjan Gogoi, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Author: P. Sathasivam, C.J.
Decided on: January 21, 2014


Full text available here

Facts
The Supreme Court considered a batch of writ petitions that were filed either by or on behalf of 15 death convicts challenging the rejection of their mercy petitions by the Governor and the President. In two of these petitions, commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment was prayed for on the ground of mental illness.

Judgment
Insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is a crucial supervening circumstance, which should be considered by this Court in deciding whether in the facts and circumstances of the case death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment. The Supreme Courtalso noted that keeping a convict in suspense while consideration of his mercy petition by the President for many years causes agony, it creates adverse physical conditions and psychological stresses on the convict under sentence of death. Indisputably, this Court, while considering the rejection of the clemency petition by the President, under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot excuse the agonizing delay caused to the convict only on the basis of the gravity of the crime.

ii. Ford v Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1989)

Type: Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit)
Coram: Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell and John P. Stevens, JJ. (Majority Opinion); Justices Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, Byron White, Sandra Day O’ Connor, JJ. (Minority Opinion)
Author: Justice Thurgood Marshall, J.
Decided on: June 26,1986


Full text available here

Facts
In 1974, a Florida court sentenced Alvin Bernard Ford to death for first-degree murder. At the time of the murder, trial, and sentencing phase, there was no indication that Ford was suffering from any mental deficiencies. While awaiting execution, Ford's mental condition worsened. A state court declined to hear arguments raised about Ford's competency. Without the benefit of a hearing, Ford's habeas corpus petition was then denied by a federal district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Findings
The US Supreme Court noting that English common law found executing the insane “savage and inhumane” held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it. Due process provides the right to a competency evaluation of a convicted defendant before the death penalty is carried out.

iii. Panetti v. Quarterman 551 U.S. 930 (2007)

Type: Writ of Certiorari, US Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit)
Coram: Anthony Kennedy, Ruth B. Ginsberg, John P. Stevens,David Souter, Stephen Breyer, JJ. (Majority Opinion); Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito, JJ. (Minority Opinion)
Author: Justice Anthony Kennedy, J.
Decided on: June 28, 2007


Full text available here

Facts
Panetti was convicted of the murder of his wife's parents and sentenced to death. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal District Court, claiming mental illness. While a psychiatric evaluation showed that Panetti was suffering from delusions, he was aware of his crime, of the fact that he was to be executed, and of the State's stated reason for executing him. The District Court concluded that he was sufficiently sane to be executed.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court by relying on Ford v. Wainwright holding that an inmate need only have an awareness of the State's reason for execution, not necessarily a rational understanding of i
Findings
Prior findings of competency do not foreclose a prisoner from proving he is incompetent to be executed because of his present mental condition. While the Supreme Court did not lay down a rule governing competency determinations, it held that a prisoner’s awareness of the State’s rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it, and that Ford does not foreclose inquiry into the latter.

iv. Atkins v Virginia 536 US 304 (2002)

Type: Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia No. 00-8452
Coram: John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, JJ. (Majority Opinion); William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas. JJ. (Minority Opinion)
Author: Justice John P. Stevens
Decided on: June 20, 2002


Full text available here

Facts
Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder.At the penalty phase, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled. The jury sentenced Atkins to death, during resentencing (on account of misleading verdict form) the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence. In affirming the death sentence, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh to reject that Atkins could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded.
Findings
The theory of deterrence in capital sentencing is predicated upon the notion that the increased severity of the punishment will inhibit criminal actors from carrying out murderous conduct. Yet it is the same cognitive and behavioral impairments that make these defendants less morally culpable—for example, the diminished ability to understand and process information, to learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, or to control impulses—that also make it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information. Nor will exempting the mentally retarded from execution lessen the deterrent effect of the death penalty with respect to offenders who are not mentally retarded. Such individuals are unprotected by the exemption and will continue to face the threat of execution. Thus, executing the mentally retarded will not measurably further the goal of deterrence.

v. Pitman & Hernandez v. State [2017] UKPC 6

Type: Privy Council Appeals No 0084 of 2014 and 0046 of 2015
Coram:Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
Author: Lord Hughes
Decided on: March 23, 2017


Full text available here

Facts
The Board heard together two appeals brought by defendants convicted in Trinidad and Tobago of murder and sentenced originally to death. While neither of these appellants faced the death sentence due to their lengthy incarceration, the court of appeals took up the issue on the law applicable to persons convicted of offences carrying a death sentence where they are to an extent mentally impaired.
Findings
The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago held that the prerogative of mercy needs to be exercised in a way which takes proper account of the developing understanding of mental disability. A person with a significant learning disability might be an example of someone whose mental functioning is significantly impaired and therefore entitled to constitutional protection from the infliction of the death penalty.

i. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat

Citation: (1964) 7 SCR 361
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1962
Coram: Subbarao K., K.C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Author: Subbarao K.
Decided on: March 19, 1964


Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was charged with murdering his wife. The appellant plead insanity under Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Sessions Judge rejected the plea of insanity and convicted him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellant’s argument was that the High Court should have held that the accused discharged the burden placed on him as he had raised a reasonable doubt to one of the ingredients (criminal intention) and therefore the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Findings
The Supreme Court looked at the evidence and the witness statements and held that it had not been established that he was insane; nor the evidence sufficient even to throw a reasonable doubt that the act might have been committed when the accused was in a fit of insanity. The Supreme Court also laid down the burden of proof to be discharged by the prosecution and the defense. There is no conflict between the general burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity. The defense may prove that he is entitled to the exception under Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.The accused must place material before the court for it to believe that said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court on the prosecution’s case leaving the accused to be discharged.

ii. Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: (2002) 7 SCC 748 Type: Appeal (crl.) 180 of 2000
Coram: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema, JJ.
Author: Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
Decided on: September 26, 2002


Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was a police constable, on the day of the incident got into a quarrel with his wife on wanting to leave his job (the wife didn't want him to). While she was washing clothes, he hit her with a grinding stone on her head. The Sessions Court found him guilty, appeal against conviction was dismissed by the High Court, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Appellant raised the defense of insanity which was rejected by both trial and high court. The Supreme Courtallowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.

Findings
The state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception. The Supreme Court observed that the unsoundness of mind preceding the occurrence and following the occurrence stands proved. While the fact that he had a weak motive or that he didn't run away do not by themselves indicate that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind. The Supreme Court held that the totality of circumstances would need to be looked at. Relying on the fact that the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind both pre and post the incident, a reasonable inference may be drawn that the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. The Supreme Court held that the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872 so as to get benefit of Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

iii. Bapu@Gajraj Singh v. Rajasthan

Citation: (2007) 8 SCC 66
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2006
Coram: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain, JJ.
Author: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Decided on: June 4, 2007


Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was accused of killing his wife and charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860. During trial, the accused took a plea that he was of unsound mind and, therefore, entitled to protection under Section 84 Indian Penal Code, 1860.This was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court also found that the plea regarding applicability of Section 84 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not tenable. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the counsel contended that the accused had a family history of insanity and also that police officials themselves wanted protection from the Court being disturbed by the violent behavior of the appellant. Therefore, the Trial Court and the High Court were not justified in refusing the protection under Section 84 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings
There is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" itself has no precise definition. Every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts, in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.

iv. Lalitha @ Latha v. State of Kerala CRL. A. 777/2019

Citation: (2007) 8 SCC 66
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2019
Coram: M.R. Anitha, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Author: M.R. Anitha, J.
Decided on: June 9, 2021


Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was put on trial for the alleged murder of her mother and two daughters, punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During trial, the appellant pleaded that she was a mental patient. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the court sentenced her to life imprisonment and fine.

Judgment
A Division Bench of the High Court agreed that the appellant had not adequately discharged the onus of proving unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident. However, they noted that the evidence brought during trial points shows that the appellant had undergone treatment for mental disorders, prior to and after the incident. The Court stated that keeping these facts in mind as well as the nature of the offence, psychiatric evaluation of the appellant should have been conducted. The Court held that the evidence adduced creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to the appellant having the requisite mens rea. The appellant’s conviction and sentence was set aside and she was directed to be sent to a mental health care establishment.

i. Shatrughan Chauhan v. UoI

Citation:(2014) 3 SCC 1
Type: Writ Petitions (Criminal) No. 55 of 2013 with Nos. 34, 56, 132, 136, 139, 141, 187-88 and 190-93 of 2013
Coram: P. Sathasivam, C.J., Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Author: P. Sathasivam, C.J.
Decided on: January 21, 2014

Full Text Available Here

Facts
The Supreme Court considered a batch of writ petitions that were filed either by or on behalf of 15 death convicts challenging the rejection of their mercy petitions by the Governor and the President. In two of these petitions, commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment was prayed for on the ground of mental illness.The court framed guidelines for safeguarding the interest of death row prisoners.

Findings
The Supreme Courtnoted that some death-row prisoners lose their mental balance on account of prolonged anxiety and suffering experienced on death row. There should, therefore, be regular mental health evaluation of all death row convicts and appropriate medical care should be given to those in need. Prison Superintendent should satisfy himself on the basis of medical reports by Government doctors and psychiatrists that the prisoner is in a fit physical and mental condition to be executed. If the Superintendent is of the opinion that the prisoner is not fit, he should forthwith stop the execution, and produce the prisoner before a Medical Board for a comprehensive evaluation and shall forward the report of the same to the State Government for further action.

ii. Accused X v. State of Maharashtra

Citation:(2019) 7 SCC 1
Type: Review Petition (Criminal) No. 301 of 2008
Coram: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Author: N.V. Ramana, J.
Decided on: April 12, 2019

Full Text Available Here

Facts
The Supreme Court was deciding a review petition in a case where the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two minor girls. One of the questions for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether post-conviction mental illness of the accused would qualify as a mitigating factor for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Findings
The Supreme Court observed that multiple circumstances such as overcrowding, various forms of violence, enforced solitude, lack of privacy, inadequate health care facilities, concerns about family etc, can take a toll on the mental health of the prisoners. The courts also observed that due to legal constraints on the recognition of broad spectrum mental illness within the Criminal Justice System, prisons inevitably become home for a greater number of mentally­ ill prisoners of various degrees. Due to the prevailing lack of awareness about such issues, the prisoners have no recourse and their mental health keeps on degrading day by day. The aspiration behind the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was to provide mental health care facility for those who are in need including prisoners. Section 20 (1) of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 explicitly provides that ‘every person with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity’. The State Governments are obliged under Section 103 of the Act to set up a mental health establishment in the medical wing of at least one prison in each State and Union Territory.

i. Gopalan Nair v State of Kerala

Citation: (1973) 1 SCC 469
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1972
Coram: A.K. Mukherjea, A.N. Grover and K.K. Mathew, JJ.
Author: A.N. Grover, JJ.
Decided on: December 22, 1972

Full Text Available Here

Facts
The appellant was accused of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced the accused to death. On appeal, the appellant claimed that he was of unsound mind and the defence which was put up was that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident and the benefit of Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sought. The High Court negatived that defence. The Supreme Courtallowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentence to one of life imprisonment instead of death.
Findings
The Supreme Courtnoted that the Appellant had some sort of mental trouble prior to the date of the occurrence (the appellant had been admitted to the mental hospital three years prior to the incident). There was nothing to show that he was not suffering from a mental obsession which may not amount to insanity but which would affect a person's mind in a way quite different from that of a normal person. The Supreme Courtobserved that the origin of the incident was not known. If he had been quite normal his reactions might have been different. He was in all likelihood not in a position to weigh and analyse in a rational manner and held that the lesser penalty for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be imposed.

ii. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: (1980) 2 SCC 684
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 273 Of 1979
Coram: Y.V. Chandrachud, CJ., P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria, A.C. Gupta, N.l. Untwalia, JJ.
Author: R.S. Sarkaria, J. (Majority Judgment)
Decided on: May 9, 1980

Full Text Available Here

Facts
A batch of Writ Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings
The Supreme Court while dealing with Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence is the exception highlighted that special reasons to be recorded while awarding death sentence. The Supreme Court, while outlining mitigating and aggravating circumstances, noted that circumstances where the offence was (a) committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance or (b) where the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and which impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, should be considered mitigating.

iii. Accused X v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: (2019)7SCC1
Type: Review Petition (Criminal) No. 301 of 2008
Coram: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Author: N.V. Ramana
Decided on: April 12, 2019

Full Text Available Here

Facts
The Supreme Court was deciding a review petition in a case where the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two minor girls. One of the questions for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether post-conviction mental illness of the accused would qualify as a mitigating factor for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Findings
The Supreme Court in this case recognized post conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor to convert death penalty to life imprisonment. The Supreme Courtnoting that there appear to be no set disorders/disabilities for evaluating the ‘severe mental illness’ laid down ‘test of severity’ as a guiding factor for recognizing those mental illnesses which qualify for an exemption. The court noted that these disorders generally include schizophrenia, other serious psychotic disorders, and dissociative disorders with schizophrenia. Therefore, the test envisaged herein predicates that the offender needs to have a severe mental illness or disability, which simply means that a medical professional would objectively consider the illness to be most serious so that he cannot understand or comprehend the nature and purpose behind the imposition of such punishment.The notion of death penalty and the sufferance it brings along causes incapacitation and is idealised to invoke a sense of deterrence. If the accused is not able to understand the impact and purpose of his execution because of his disability, the raison d’etre for the execution itself collapses.