Defence's Burden To Prove Plea Of Insanity Is Only To Establish Preponderance Of Probability, Not Beyond All Manner Of Doubt: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. The observation was made while hearing an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the trial court, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment. A division of Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is clear that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the defence failed to prove that the accused was affected with such mental ailment, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his acts, is totally unjustified". In this regard, placing reliance on Apex Court decision in Devidas Loka Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2018 SC 3093], the court observed that the conclusion drawn by the trial court is unjustified, in light of convincing and unimpeachable oral and medical evidence available on record. Facts The appellant-Mohanlal was married to the deceased-Jhamka d/o Sanwla Ram about 5 years before the incident. Smt. Jhamka was inflicted injuries at her matrimonial home and was declared dead at the hospital. Thereafter, Sanwla Ram filed a written report at the Police Station on the same day alleging that the deceased's maternal relatives viz. the husband Mohanlal, the sister-in-law Manju Devi and the brother-in-law Bhakhra Ram used to harass and humiliate the deceased for dowry. Whenever she came to the maternal home, she complained of these incidents to him. The complainant alleged that he had given sufficient dowry but the deceased was still being harassed and murdered. Notably, Mohanlal took a specific plea of insanity in his explanation and stated that he was suffering from a bout of schizophrenia on the date of the incident. Later, the trial court acquitted all three accused Mohanlal, Manju Devi and Bhakhra Ram of the offence under Section 498A IPC. Mohanlal was also acquitted under Section 304B IPC, but was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, Mohanlal filed the present appeal. Findings After perusal of the records, the court opined that there is unimpeachable documentary as well as oral evidence which establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused was being provided treatment for the mental ailment since the year 2010 onwards. The court observed that Psychosis, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) is a categorisation of symptoms within general diagnosis of Psychosis. The court added that Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology grades Psychosis as an acutely severe mental disorder, where the patient loses contact with reality along with absolute lack of empathy and absence of insight. The court, while acquitting the accused of all charges, observed that the appellant shall be provided care and support befitting his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, after his release from prison. In this regard, the court asked to send a copy of this order to District legal Services Authority, Jalore for needful action. The court further ruled, "Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court." Arguments The counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court was thoroughly unjustified in relying upon the pleadings of the bail applications filed on behalf of the accused appellant in order to draw an adverse inference against him. He contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the accused appellant was responsible for causing the fatal injuries to his wife then also, apparently, since the accused was suffering from insanity, he deserves benefit of Section 84 IPC and is entitled to an acquittal. In contrast,the Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondents, contended that the murder was committed inside the matrimonial home and as the presence of the accused in the house has been established by unimpeachable evidence, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden would shift on to the accused to explain as to in what manner his wife received the fatal injuries in his presence. He argued that the accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., did not deny his ...

Defence's Burden To Prove Plea Of Insanity Is Only To Establish Preponderance Of Probability, Not Beyond All Manner Of Doubt: Rajasthan HC

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags