"Burden To Prove Mental Incapacity Is On The Defence" : Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing His Two Sons

Rejecting his plea of mental incapacity, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his two sons."Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence", the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a criminal appeal. The court found that he was neither suffering from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of unsound mind.The prosecution case against the appellant Prem Singh was that, on 3.5.2009, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, and strangulated them. Thereafter, he threw the dead bodies into the canal; and attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning. It was also alleged that he was a drunkard, who doubted the chastity of his wife and suspected that the children were not his sons. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the same was upheld by the Delhi High Court. Before the Apex Court, he took the following contentions - (1) there was no reason or motive for him to kill his own sons; and the alleged want of explanation on the part of the accused cannot be a ground for conviction in the present case; (2) the Trial Court omitted to examine the capacity of the appellant in terms of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 while ignoring the material evidence on record to the effect that the accused was not a person of sound mental disposition, for he was admitted to a rehabilitation centre for de-addiction and was discharged against the advice of the centre.While rejecting the first contention, the bench observed thus: It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. There had not been any explanation on the part of the appellant and, as noticed, immediately after the incident, he attempted to create a false narrative of accidental drowning of the children. There had not been any specific response from the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC either.The court said that when the evidence on record unambiguously proves the guilt of the accused, the factor relating to motive cannot displace or weaken the conclusions naturally flowing from the evidence. Moreover, the present case cannot be said to be of want of motive altogether, it said.The court further noted that the plea of unsoundness of mind was never taken in the trial nor any evidence was led in this regard. It said that there is nothing on record to find that the appellant was a person of unsound mind at the time of commission of crime or was a person of unsound mind when tried in this case. Post-conviction behaviour is hardly of any relevance so far as present appeal is concerned, it said. While dismissing the appeal, the bench observed:The evidence on record, taken as a whole, at the most shows that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for de-addiction. However, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellant was medically treated as a person of unsound mind or was legally required to be taken as a person of unsound mindThere was no fault on the part of the Trial Court or the investigating agency, it is also noteworthy that contrary to even a trace of want of mental capacity of the appellant at the time of commission of the crimes in question, the manner of commission, with strangulation of the children one by one; throwing of their dead bodies into the canal; appellant himself swimming in the canal and coming out; and immediately thereafter, stating before several persons that the children had accidentally slipped into the canal so as to project it as a case of accidental drowning, if at all, show an alert and calculative mind, which had worked with specific intent to cause the death of the children and to cause disappearance of evidence by throwing dead bodies into the canal and thereafter, to mislead by giving a false narrative. By no logic and by no measure of assessment, the appellant, who is found to have carried all the aforesaid misdeeds, could be said to be a person of unsound mind.Case detailsPrem Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 | CrA 1 OF 2023 | 2 Jan 2023 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu DhuliaFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Nidhi, AOR (SCLSC) For Respondent(s) Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Niroop Sukirthy, Adv. Mr. Mohd Ovais, Adv.HeadnotesIndian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 106- It is, of course, the duty of...

"Burden To Prove Mental Incapacity Is On The Defence" : Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing His Two Sons

Ashok KM

Tags