AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1 ::(2011) 4 DLT(CRL) 798 ::2011 (4) CurCriR 353 ::(2012) 1 AllCriR 891 ::2012 CriLR(SC&MP) 52 ::2012 (1) SCC 602 ::2012 (1) SCC(Cri) 406 ::2012 (1) RecCriR 197 ::(2011) 13 Scale 140 ::2012 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 52 ::(2012) 2 Mh LJ (Cri) 22 ::(2012) 1 JCR 248 (SC) ::2012 (1) Ker LT 38 SN ::(2012) 1 Ker LT 38 ::2012 (2) RajLW 1144 ::2011 (4) Crimes 303 ::(2012) 1 UC 31 ::2012 (76) AllCriC 302 ::(2012) 1 ChandCriC 135 ::(2012) 109 AllIndCas 189 (SC) ::2011 (3) GujLH 802

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2005 Cri LJ (NOC) 147 (Raj))

Hon'ble Judge(s): Swatanter Kumar, Ranjana Desai , JJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.379— Constitution of India , Art.134— Appeal against acquittal - Unless judgment is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous, Court shall be reluctant to interfere with acquittal. (Para 9 12 13 14 15) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.84— Defence of insanity - Person of unsound mind - Cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing - Mens rea and act both are essential elements of crime. To commit a criminal offence, mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said furiosi nulla voluntas est. In other words, a person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behaviour.(Para 19) ....