Burden Of Proof On Accused To Prove Plea Of Insanity Is One Of Preponderance Of Probability : Supreme Court

Accepting the plea of insanity, the Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by a trial court in 2006 convicting a man for the offence of murder. The Court noted that the appellant was undergoing treatment for schizophrenia at the time of the offence which took place in 2004. There was evidence on record that prior to the occurrence, he had underwent in-patient treatment at a Government Medical College Hospital for mental illness. Two doctors had also testified before the Court regarding the illness of the appellant. However, the Trial Court and the High Court brushed aside those factors.In the judgment, the Court observed that the burden on the accused to prove his plea of insanity is one of preponderance of probability. "The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt", the Court said."It is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and M M Sundresh said.The court observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted in a murder case. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant attacked the deceased at a store in which he was working, which belonged to the brother of his grandfather. He allegedly assaulted the deceased with an iron locking plate without any provocation and premeditation.In the judgment, the Apex Court bench made the following observations regarding Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua nonThe existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission.Mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mindThe provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is a very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law.A person of an unsound mind does not know that such an act is right or wrongActus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the consequence of it.Collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanityThe burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged.Have a look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrenceSection 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a general...

Burden Of Proof On Accused To Prove Plea Of Insanity Is One Of Preponderance Of Probability : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags