<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by an accused in a double murder case pleading the defence of insanity.</p>.<p>Justice M I Arun said that a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient, and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the same.</p>.<p>The petitioner Alphonsa Saldanha is accused of killing Vincent D’Souza and his wife Helen D’Souza in the presence of their two children in April 2020.</p>.<p class="bodytext">While in judicial custody, Saldanha was treated by a prison psychiatrist and he subsequently filed two applications before the trial court, one under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with CrPC section 311, and the other under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act. He sought further scrutiny of the records regarding unsoundness of his mind and a proper diagnosis of the same. He moved the High Court after the trial court rejected his applications in 2023. </p>.Karnataka High Court quashes prohibitory orders against Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji.<p class="bodytext">The trial court said that the opinion of the expert on a mere single examination of the accused is of no evidentiary value to adjudicate the unsoundness of mind of the person at the time of commission of the offence. The petitioner contended that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of commission of the offence. He further argued that under the Mental Healthcare Act, during any judicial process, if proof of mental illness is produced, the same shall be referred by the court for further scrutiny to the concerned medical board.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said that to prove the fact of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the act, the petitioner has to establish by adducing necessary evidence regarding his behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence of the act and by relying upon his history of the diagnosis, treatment and medications. “...a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient; and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the same. Further, what has to be considered by the courts is the state of mind of the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence and not whether the petitioner is of unsound mind as of today or not,” Justice Arun said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court further said, “Perusal of the records shows that DW6 is the only psychiatrist examined by the petitioner. Nowhere in the examination-in-chief a question is put to him to speak about the unsound mind of the petitioner sufficient to establish his incapacity of knowing the nature of his act of killing or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to the law. Evidence of the other persons so far adduced and the 313 statement of the accused/petitioner herein also does not satisfy the ingredient of unsoundness of mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC.”</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by an accused in a double murder case pleading the defence of insanity.</p>.<p>Justice M I Arun said that a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient, and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the same.</p>.<p>The petitioner Alphonsa Saldanha is accused of killing Vincent D’Souza and his wife Helen D’Souza in the presence of their two children in April 2020.</p>.<p class="bodytext">While in judicial custody, Saldanha was treated by a prison psychiatrist and he subsequently filed two applications before the trial court, one under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with CrPC section 311, and the other under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act. He sought further scrutiny of the records regarding unsoundness of his mind and a proper diagnosis of the same. He moved the High Court after the trial court rejected his applications in 2023. </p>.Karnataka High Court quashes prohibitory orders against Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji.<p class="bodytext">The trial court said that the opinion of the expert on a mere single examination of the accused is of no evidentiary value to adjudicate the unsoundness of mind of the person at the time of commission of the offence. The petitioner contended that he did not have the necessary mens rea at the time of commission of the offence. He further argued that under the Mental Healthcare Act, during any judicial process, if proof of mental illness is produced, the same shall be referred by the court for further scrutiny to the concerned medical board.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said that to prove the fact of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the act, the petitioner has to establish by adducing necessary evidence regarding his behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence of the act and by relying upon his history of the diagnosis, treatment and medications. “...a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient; and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the same. Further, what has to be considered by the courts is the state of mind of the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence and not whether the petitioner is of unsound mind as of today or not,” Justice Arun said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court further said, “Perusal of the records shows that DW6 is the only psychiatrist examined by the petitioner. Nowhere in the examination-in-chief a question is put to him to speak about the unsound mind of the petitioner sufficient to establish his incapacity of knowing the nature of his act of killing or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to the law. Evidence of the other persons so far adduced and the 313 statement of the accused/petitioner herein also does not satisfy the ingredient of unsoundness of mind as contemplated under Section 84 of the IPC.”</p>
