Luxmi attacked and killed his brother Chedi Lal with a weapon. He claimed insanity as a defense under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed Luxmi's motive, conduct before and after the incident, and found evidence of motive against Luxmi. His actions did not support being insane at the time of the offense. The court ruled that Luxmi could not claim protection under Section 84 as the law requires being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, not just claiming to not know an act was wrong.

1. Luxmi Vs State: AIR 1959 All 534
on 29-10-1958
By Raghav Joshi,
(R450210092)
Rishab Shukla BALLB(Section B)
(R450210097)

2. The Facts of the case
• The appellant Luxmi, was an addict of weed and
bhang.
• He used to run around his relatives and would
ask from them some money to dope.
• He used to beat his mother and wife
• Deceased Chedi Lal was his brother.
• Chedi lal often rebuked him for his vices.
• He never gave any money to Luxmi to smoke
ganja or for any other intoxications

3. The Facts (Contd.)
• One day the deceased found Luxmi beating his
mother and wife.
• He interveined and chained Luxmi
• Luxmi ran away after breaking chains
• Nihari Ahir, a person of the same village
approached Chedi Lal and asked him to give
money to Luxmi for smoking weed, but he didn’t
agree to it
• Thereafter Luxmi stopped talking to Chedi Lal

4. THE FATEFUL NIGHT
• Chedi Lal was sitting on chabutara
• Luxmi attacked him with Pharsa
• Chedi lal Shouted for help, his son Debi Dayal
and other villagers came to help him
• Luxmi ran away
• Chedi Lal died.
• FIR was lodged against Luxmi and police came
to the village and found Luxmi absconding

5. THE ISSUE
• Whether Luxmi could get benefit of exception
under section 84 of IPC?

6. Contention on behalf of the apellant
• Accepted that he was addicted to weed
• Denied that he had run away after striking Chedi
lal with Pharsa.
• That the act of the apellant fell under the
exception Sectio n 84 of IPC
• "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who, at tthe time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he isdoing what is
either wrong or contraiy to law."

7. Cases Cited
• Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King, AIR 1949 Cal

8. JUDGMENT
• Analysis of : 1) Motive
• 2) Conduct immediately before
• 3) conduct immediately subsequent
• In the present case there is evidence of motive
against the appellant. His conduct prior to the
incident as well as at the time of the incident
does not support the contention that he was
insane at the time when the offence was
committed. His conduct subsequent to the
incident also does not lend any support to this
contention.

9. • It will be open to an accused in every case to
plead that he had dreamt a dream enjoining him
to do a criminal act, and believing that his dream
was a command by a higher authority, he was
impelled to do the criminal act, and he was
therefore, protected by Section 84. We are of
opinion that such a plea would be untenable,
and would not fall within the four corners of
Section 84

10. • ignores that what Section 84 lays down is not
Contd. accused claiming protection under it
that the
should not know an act to beright or wrong, but
that the accused should be"incapable" of
knowing whether the act done by him is right or
wrong

12. OBITER DICTA
To enable an accused to get the benefit of Section
84 he should be able to establish any one of the
following three elements viz. : (1) that the nature
of the act was not known to the accused or (2)
that the act was not known by him to be contrary
to law or (3) that the act was not known by him
to be wrong.

13. • what Section 84 lays down is not that the
accused claiming protection under it should not
know an act to beright or wrong, but that the
accused should be"incapable" of knowing
whether the act done by him is right or wrong
• What the law protects is the case of a man in
whom the guiding light that enables a man to
distinguish between right and wrong and
between legality and illegality is completely
extinguished.

14. •THANK YOU
•Smoking is injurious to
health