Recently, a plea invoking the defence of unsoundness of mind reached the Karnataka High Court, where the Court was called upon to examine whether the materials placed by a murder accused justified a fresh referral for psychiatric evaluation. The matter probed the limits of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the evidentiary burden that rests upon an accused claiming lack of mens rea at the time of the offence.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from proceedings before the trial court in which the accused, facing a murder charge, filed two applications, one under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 311 CrPC, and another under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, seeking referral to a Medical Board. He asserted that he was of unsound mind and lacked the requisite intention when the alleged offence occurred. The trial court rejected both applications, holding that a referral was unnecessary in the presence of existing defence evidence, including medical records and testimony from treating doctors. Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court challenging the order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that he had a longstanding history of mental illness and lacked the mental capacity to commit the offence with the requisite intention. He argued that the trial court had erred in refusing his request for further psychiatric evaluation. It was his case that the applications were essential to establish his defence of unsoundness of mind, and that without expert assessment, he would be denied a fair opportunity to place relevant medical opinion on record.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State opposed the plea on the ground that the accused had not produced any material capable of demonstrating unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence, as required under Section 84 IPC. It submitted that a mere plea of insanity could not justify a fresh referral and that expert opinion based on a single examination had little evidentiary value when the record already contained medical documents and testimony from treating doctors and neighbours. The State maintained that under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, a Medical Board referral arises only when the accused first establishes prima facie proof of mental illness, which he had failed to do, and therefore the trial court rightly rejected his applications.
Observation of the Court:
The Court held that “The onus is on the petitioner to establish that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of killing of the deceased.”
The Bench observed that “In umpteen judgments, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the opinion of experts is not binding on the trial Court and the trial Court will entertain an application made under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only if it is deemed necessary and not otherwise.”
Clarifying the nature of the inquiry, the Court stated that an accused must prove unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the act, which may be demonstrated through behaviour, past diagnoses, treatment history, and other contemporaneous evidence.
The Court reiterated, while finding no fault in the trial court’s conclusion, that “the opinion of the expert on a mere single examination of the accused is of no evidentiary value to adjudicate the unsoundness of mind of the person at the time of commission of the offence.”
It further noted that under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, an applicant must first produce evidence meeting the threshold of Section 84 IPC, stating,“As the petitioner has failed to produce adequate evidence in proof of unsoundness of mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC, the question of entertaining the application under Section 105 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, does not arise and the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Alphonsa Saldana Vs. The State Of Karnataka and Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3773 of 2024 (Gm-Res)
Coram: Hon’ble Justice M. I. Arun
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Ashwin Joyston Kutinha and Vikram Raj A.
Advocate for Respondent: HCGP Rajat Subramanyam and Adv. Adlene Stephanie Mendes
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
