DAHYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI THAKKAR

V.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(AIR 1964 SC 1563)

By – Vaishnavi Saravanan
 INTRODUCTION
• Appellant – Dahyabai Chhaganbhai Thakkar
• Respondent – State Of Gujarat
• Court – Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India
• Date Of Judgement – 19th March 1964
• Bench - K. Subbarao, K. C. Das Gupta,
Raghubar Dayal
• Jurisdiction – Criminal Appellant Jurisdiction
 GIST OF THE CASE
 The appellant (Dahyabhai Thakkar) was charged
with murdering his wife, Kalavati.
 He claimed insanity before the Sessions Judge
who rejected his plea.
 He was then convicted under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code.
 On further appeal, the High Court upheald the
Session Court’s judgement.
 SECTION 302

 Punishment for murder –

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also
be liable to fine.
 STORY
 Dahyabhai (appellant) was the husband of the deceased
Kalavati (victim). She was married to appellant in the year
1958.
 On the night of 9 April, 1959 the appellant and his wife slept
in their bed room with the doors bolted from the inside.
 At about 3am Kalavati cried that she was being killed.
Which made the neighbours collect in front of the room and
called the accused to open the door. When the door was
opened they found Kalavati dead with a number of wounds
on her body.
 Dahyabhai the accused was sent to the sessions court for
trial on the charge of murder.
 In the sessions court a defence was set up that the
accused was insane because of his condition of fits of
insanity at the time of the incident wherein he was not
able to understand the nature of his act.
 The additional session judge considered the entire
evidence placed before him and concluded that the
accused failed to satisfy him that the act was performed
under insanity condition of the accused
 Having rejected his plea he was convicted under
section 302 of murder under the Indian Penal Code.
Sentenced him to undergo rigorous life
imprisonment.
 On appeal to the High Court, it pondered upon the
findings and the decisions of the sessions court.
 The High Court satisfied and agreed with the
decision of the sessions court confirmed the
conviction and sentence of the appellant.
 ISSUES

 What was the motive for the appellant to kill his wife
in such a ghastly manner he did by inflicting 44 knife
injuries on her body ?
 Whether the accused was in such a state of mind to be
entitled the benefit of section 84 of the IPC ? ( section 84
states that “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 that is either wrong or contrary to law”)
 What was the previous history of the mental
condition of the accused?
 JUDGEMENT
 The Supreme Court said that it agreed with the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
 SC stated that it does not see any indication of insanity
from the materials found in the room therefore the bench
supported the case of premeditated murder.
 To summarize – the accused did not like his wife.
Eventhough he was employed in Ahmedabad he did not
take his wife along. He even wrote letters to his father in
law that he did not like her and should take away her to
his house.
 It has not been established that he was insane, nor
the evidence is sufficient even to throw a
reasonable doubt in our mind that the act might
have been committed when the accused was in a
fit of insanity.
Doctrine of burden of proof in the context of plea
of insanity was stated by Subba Roa justice
speaking for the court in the following
propositions :
1. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused had committed the
requisite mens rea.
2. The is a rebuttable presumption that the accused
was not insane when he committed the crime in
the sense laid down by Section 84 of the IPC.
 CASE COMMENT
 Section 84 deals fairly with mentally ill offenders but there may
be false acquittals or convictions.
 Most of such criminals are emotionally unstable and undeterred
by punishments.
 Like in foreign countries lot of cases have been decided on such
issues and consideration have been given to pleas of irresistible
impulse, I feel same thing should be implemented in India.
 Provisions should be made for examination by a psychiatrist in
all such cases and not let free in larger interest of society but
may be detained in hospitals to improve and support them and
not punish them. decision should not only depend on the
discretion of one judge. Opinion of the doctor should be
mandatory and proper analysis should be done before punishing
them.