Mere Plea of Insanity Not Enough, Accused Must Prove Unsoundness Of Mind At Time Of Offence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that in criminal cases, a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient, and that the onus is on the accused to prove it. It was stated that while considering such a plea, courts have to consider the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence and not whether the accused is of unsound mind as of today or not.

Justice M. I. Arun, held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Alphonsa Saldana, a murder accused who had approached the court challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the applications filed by him.

Saldana filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code and another application under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017 for being referred to the Medical Board. He had set up a defence of unsoundness of mind and has contended that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of commission of the offence.

The bench said, “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.”

Further, it said, “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.”

The court emphasised that 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.

Following which, it held, “The trial Court in the impugned order has come to the 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 has concluded that in the presence of defence evidence, especially the evidence of the treated doctor, evidence of the neighbour, evidence of the psychiatrist and the medical document, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Court does not deem it necessary to refer the petitioner for further medical examination under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and it has rejected the application of the petitioner.”

It added, “Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any error in the impugned order.”

It was noted that under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, the person making the application is required to produce proof of mental illness to the standards as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC, and only if such evidence is produced and if the same is challenged by the other party, in this case the prosecution, then in that event, the Court is bound to refer the same for further scrutiny to the concerned Medical Board.

Thus, the Court held, “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.”

Appearance: Advocate Ashwin Joyston Kutinha for Advocate Vikram Raj A for Petitioner.

HCGP Rajat Subramanyam FOR R1.

Advocate Adlene Stephani Mendes for R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

Case Title: Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka

Click Here To Read/Download Order