The Supreme Court had observed the standard of proof. For proving insanity, lunacy is only a reasonable doubt, and an accused who seeks exoneration from liability under section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity and not just medical insanity. The bench of justice included Prashant Kumar Mishra and JB Pardiwala, dealing with the man’s appeal against the High Court verdict.
On the issue of insanity, as they have raised before the trial court, the bench said that apart from just giving medical evidence that his behavior was insane or normal at the time of committing the assault and immediately after that, it was also worth noticing. It has also been seen that the appellant, the accused, attacked the deceased using a sharp weapon, which the witness later snatched, and he was trying to take out the windpipe from the neck of his dead grandfather, which was already cut.
This action of the accused was abnormal and weird. It indicates that he was suffering from some insanity at the time of the incident. The bench, while referring to the incident of the two witnesses of the prosecution and the medical evidence that was also provided, said that it was thoroughly proven that their client had attacked the victim with a sharp weapon, which caused his death.
Is the definition of insanity vague in IPC?
Since insanity or saying unsound mind was not defined in the Penal Code, it carries various meanings in different contexts. It describes varying degrees and types of mental disorders. A distinction was to be made between medical and legal insanity. The Court is now concerned with legal insanity, not medical insanity, as noted by the judge.
The bench said that in light of the evidence discussed in the trial court, including the medical evidence provided regarding his abnormal behavior at the time of the crime, it does not appear that the view taken by the trial court was perverse or it was without any evidence.
The verdict of the trial court acquitting the accused was later challenged by the state before the High Court, which reversed the order and later convicted him of murder.
Is there any difference between legal and medical insanity under the law?
A Delhi man was sentenced to jail for murdering his 81-year-old grandfather by the Supreme Court, which said that his behavior was abnormal and weird, indicating that he had some mental disorder during the incident.
The top Court, while setting aside the verdict of the Sikkim High Court and convicting and sentencing the man to lifetime imprisonment, affirmed that the trial could order acquitted him while concluding that he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act due to the reason of unsoundness of his mind.
It was settled that the judgment of acquittal could be reversed by the appellate Court only when there is perversity. Suppose the conclusion of the Court is possible only because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence. In that case, the appellate Court will not disturb the findings of the acquittal and substitute its conclusions for convicting the accused.
My opinion
– Medical insanity refers to a person’s mental state and ability to understand the nature of their actions. If a person is deemed medically insane, they are not held responsible for their actions.
– Legal insanity, conversely, is determined by the Court and refers to a person’s ability to understand that their actions are illegal. If a person is found legally insane, they may still be held responsible for their actions, but the punishment may be less severe.
It’s important to note that the Indian legal system does not recognize the concept of “not guilty because of insanity,” but the defense of insanity can still be used in Court.
#InsanityPlea #LegalDefence #MentalIllness #Murderer #IndianLaw #JusticeSystem #CrimeAndPunishment #UnfitToStandTrial #MentalHealthAwareness #CriminalBehaviour
