Standard Of Proof To Prove Insanity Is Only 'Reasonable Doubt' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing His Grandfather
The Supreme court observed that the standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt’.An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed.The court observed thus while acquitting a murder accused by allowing...
The Supreme court observed that the standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt’.
An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed.
The court observed thus while acquitting a murder accused by allowing his appeal. Rupesh Manger (Thapa) was convicted by the Sikkim High Court after reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court. He is accused of the murder of his grandfather. The Trial Court had found that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts by reason of unsoundness of mind and it is highly probable that he was unaware of what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
In appeal, the bench, referring to the medical evidence about the mental illness of the accused and his abnormal behaviour at the time of occurrence, observed that it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court was perverse or that it was based on without any evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused, the Court said.
"This Court has held that an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Since the term insanity or unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the Penal Code, it carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity.", the Court said.
Reliance was also placed on the recent judgment Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 on the issue of insanity.
Rupesh Manger (Thapa) vs State of Sikkim 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 - 2023 INSC 829
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Sirajudden, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tilak Raj Pasi, Adv., Mr. Samrath Mohanty, Adv., Mr. S. Xavier Felix, Adv., Mr. H. Rajasekhar, Adv., Mr. Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR. Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv., Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv.,Mr. Naman Jain, Adv.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 84 - Standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt - A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. (Para 19-22)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 378, 386 - The judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. (Para 24)