Accused Claiming Defence Of 'Unsound Mind' U/S 84 IPC Not Expected To Prove His Insanity Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently observed that while Section 105 of the Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to prove his insanity during an unlawful act, cases under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code require the application of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than proving beyond reasonable doubt.“This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently observed that while Section 105 of the Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to prove his insanity during an unlawful act, cases under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code require the application of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than proving beyond reasonable doubt.
“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”, Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Ranjan Sharma observed.
The bench was hearing an appeal preferred by Krishan Dev Singh, who was convicted for the murder of one Rachna Devi. Central to the case was Singh's mental state at the time of the alleged offence, with his defence contending that he was not of sound mind and thus not legally responsible for his actions.
After weighing the arguments presented by both the appellant and the prosecution, the bench expounded on the significance of Section 84 IPC and its intricate relationship with Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. These legal provisions are pivotal in determining the burden of proof in cases involving claims of insanity.
The bench drew a crucial distinction between the two sections, underscoring that while Section 105 places the burden on the accused to prove insanity during an unlawful act, Section 84 IPC requires standard of proof of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than the traditional requirement of proving 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It added,
“..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. Section 105 has to be read along with Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The better way to reconcile the aforesaid provision would be to have a look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence.”
The meticulously scrutinized the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and expert testimonies and concluded that burden of proving unsoundness of mind had not been satisfactorily met and there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant had received medical treatment or had been legally declared to be of unsound mind.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentencing pronounced by the lower court.
Case Title: Krishan Dev Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 60