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...
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 non
The 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 mind
The 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 wrong
Actus 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 insanity
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. 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 occurrence
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case under Section 84 of the IPC, one has to apply the concept of preponderance of probabilities. The aforesaid provision has to be read along with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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.
Prosecution and the Court have their distinct roles to play
As Section 84 of the IPC has its laudable objective behind it, the prosecution and the Court have their distinct roles to play. The agency has to take up the investigation from the materials produced on behalf of the person claiming unsoundness. It has to satisfy itself that the case would not come within the purview of Section 84 of the IPC. The Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether the act was done by a person with an unsound mind within the rigour of Section 84 of the IPC.
Scope and ambit of Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C
A well-laid procedure is contemplated under Sections 328 to 339 of Cr.P.C. There is not even a need for an application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. in finding out as to whether an accused would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the Court. Under Section 330, the Court can even go to the extent of discharging such a person if his inability to stand trial continues with a rigid chance of improvement. As per Section 334 of Cr.P.C., the judgment of the Court shall include a specific finding that the act was committed due to unsoundness of mind, though it was actually done. The reason is simple as there cannot be an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind unless the act is actually done.. The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability.
The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice.. Having noted the scope and ambit of Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C., including the provisions incorporated by way of amendments in the year 2009, one has to take into account the fact that the Court has a larger role to play while considering the case under Section 84 of the IPC.
If a friendly approach is required to be followed during the trial, when adequate powers have been conferred upon the Court to even discharge an accused on the ground of an unsound mind, the same reasoning will have to be applied with much force when it comes to Section 84 of the IPC.
Taking note of the evidence on record, the bench observed that both the Trial Court and the High Court were influenced by the nature of the act while ignoring the condition of the appellant and the fact that the burden on the accused is one of preponderance of probability. The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
Case
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs State of Goa | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 | CrA 2010 OF 2010 | 12 Jan 2023 | Justices B R Gavai and M M Sundresh
For Appellant(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR (SCLSC) Mr. M.Z. Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Shahbaz, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kr. Kanva, Adv. Mr. Sayyed Imtiyaz Ali, Adv. Ms. Amna Darakshan, Adv. Mr. Ali Safeer Farooqi, Adv.
Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 84 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 105 , 8 - 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. 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 - The behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence has to be looked into. (Para 8-9)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 84 - The 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 - 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. (Para 4-7)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Chapter XXV ; Sections 328 to 339 - Though procedural in nature, Chapter XXV becomes substantive when it deals with an accused person of unsound mind - There is not even a need for an application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. in finding out as to whether an accused would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the Court -The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability. The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice. (Para 15-16)