Mere Plea Of Insanity Not Enough; Accused Must Prove Mental State At Time Of Offence: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection Of Applications In Murder Case
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M.I. Arun held that an insanity plea in a criminal case requires proof from the accused and that the assessment must relate to the accused’s mental state at the time of the alleged offence rather than their present condition. The Court made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by a murder-accused individual who had challenged the trial court’s refusal to seek additional psychiatric evaluation or to refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Board. The Court concluded that the accused had not produced material sufficient to warrant such referrals and upheld the trial court’s decision to proceed on the basis of the evidence already on record.
The petitioner, accused in a criminal trial, admitted to killing two individuals by stabbing but pleaded insanity as his defence. He examined eight defence witnesses, including a psychiatrist who treated him in prison, and produced certain exhibits. To strengthen his defence, the petitioner filed two applications before the trial court. The first application was under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking referral of medical records and complaints to the Forensic Psychiatry Department of NIMHANS for expert opinion. The second application was under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, requesting referral of medical records to the concerned Medical Board for scrutiny and diagnosis.
The trial court dismissed both applications, holding that the evidence already adduced was sufficient for adjudication. The petitioner challenged this dismissal through a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in rejecting his applications, particularly under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, which mandates referral to a Medical Board when proof of mental illness is produced and challenged. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had not produced adequate proof of unsoundness of mind as required under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
The statutory provisions invoked included Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving exceptions on the accused; Section 84 of the IPC, which exempts acts committed by persons of unsound mind; Section 45 of the Evidence Act on expert opinions; Section 311 of the Cr.P.C on summoning witnesses; and Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, relating to scrutiny of mental illness during judicial proceedings.
Justice M.I. Arun recorded: “Admittedly, the act of killing the deceased by the petitioner is admitted by the petitioner herein. He has set up a defence of unsoundness of mind and has contended that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of commission of the offence. Under the said circumstances, the onus is on the petitioner to establish that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of killing of the deceased.”
The Court referred to Section 105 of the Evidence Act and stated: “When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code…is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”
On Section 84 IPC, the Court recorded: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
Regarding expert opinion, the Court observed: “In umpteen judgments, this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, the opinion of experts is not binding on the trial Court and the trial Court will entertain an application made under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only if it is deemed necessary and not otherwise.”
On the trial court’s rejection of the application under Section 45, the Court stated: “Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any error in the impugned order insofar as it relates to rejection of the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 311 of Cr.P.C, as the Court has opined, it can decide the case on hand based on the evidence adduced by the accused insofar as it relates to his behaviour is concerned before, at the time and immediately thereafter the commissioning of the alleged offence.”
On Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, the Court recorded: “When an application is made under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, claiming that the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind, as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC…only if such evidence is produced and if the same is challenged by the other party…then in that event, the Court is bound to refer the same for further scrutiny to the concerned medical Board.”
Finally, the Court stated: “As the petitioner has failed to produce adequate evidence in proof of unsoundness of mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC, the question of entertaining the application under Section 105 of the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017, does not arise and the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for.”
The Court issued the following directions: “The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. The observations made herein above are only for the purposes of disposal of this writ petition and the trial Court will not be bound by it and will take a decision based upon the evidence adduced before it, independently of the observations made herein above.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, Advocate for Sri. Vikram Raj A., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Rajat Subramanyam, High Court Government Pleader for R1; Smt. Adlene Stephanie Mendes, Advocate for R2.
Case Title: Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:44219
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3773 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.I. Arun
