Mere Plea Of Insanity Not Sufficient; Onus Is On Accused To Prove Same: Karnataka High Court Rejects Petition Of Murder Accused

The Petition before the High Court was filed seeking the quashing of the impugned order of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge.

The Single Bench of Justice M.I.Arun held, “The petitioner, in order to prove the fact of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the act, can establish the same by adducing necessary evidence regarding his behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence of the said act and also by relying upon his past history of the diagnosis, treatment and medications and such other relevant facts under the circumstances of the case. As already stated, a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient; and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the same. Further, what has to be considered by the Courts is the state of mind of the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence and not whether the petitioner is of unsound mind as of today or not.”

Advocate Ashwin Joyston Kutinha represented the Petitioner, while HCGP Rajat Subramanyam represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was accused of murdering a man and a woman by stabbing. The petitioner admitted killing the said two persons but pleaded the defence of insanity before the trial Court. The petitioner filed applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code and an application under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017. The trial Court dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the act of killing the deceased by the petitioner was admitted by the petitioner. He had set up a defence of unsoundness of mind and contended that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of commission of the offence. As per the Bench, under such circumstances, the onus was on the petitioner to establish that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of killing of the deceased.

Referring to section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the Bench observed, “Thus, the onus of proving that the petitioner was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, that is, the killing of the deceased in the instant case, due to unsoundness of mind lies on the petitioner.”

The Bench also reiterated that the opinion of experts is not binding on the trial Court and the trial Court would entertain an application made under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only if it is deemed necessary and not otherwise. The Bench noted that the Trial Court in the impugned order concluded that the opinion of the expert on a mere single examination of the accused was of no evidentiary value to adjudicate the unsoundness of mind of the person at the time of commission of the offence. “...I do not see any error in the impugned order insofar as it relates to rejection of the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 311 of Cr.P.C, as the Court has opined, it can decide the case on hand based on the evidence adduced by the accused insofar as it relates to his behaviour is concerned before, at the time and immediately thereafter the commissioning of the alleged offence”, the Bench stated.

Coming to the application made under Section 105 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, the Bench noted that mental illness defined in the Mental Health Care Act, is much broader than 'unsoundness of mind' as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC. “A person with an unsound mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC is definitely suffering from mental illness as defined under the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, but all the mental illness that gets covered under Section 2(1)(s) of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, does not come in the purview of 'unsoundness of mind' as contemplated under the IPC”, it noted.

It was noticed that nowhere in the examination-in-chief of the psychiatrist was a question put to him to speak about the unsound mind of the petitioner to establish his incapacity of knowing the nature of his act of killing the deceased or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to the law. The Bench found that the evidence of the other persons so far adduced and the 313 statement of the accused/petitioner also did not satisfy the ingredient of unsoundness of mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC.

Considering that the petitioner failed to produce adequate evidence in proof of unsoundness of mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC, the Bench held that the question of entertaining the application under Section 105 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, did not arise. Thus, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Mr. Alphonsa Saldana v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:44219)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, Vikram Raj

Respondent: HCGP Rajat Subramanyam, Advocate Adlene Stephanie Mendes

Click here to read/download Order