The Supreme Court set aside the life imprisonment of a man convicted of murder, ruling that ‘a lunatic cannot be held criminally liable as he cannot exercise his right to defend himself’, a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “The law lays down that no act done by a lunatic is an offence. The reason is that a lunatic is not in a position to defend himself. The right to defend a charge for an offence is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 352, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for fatally assaulting a man with an iron pipe in 2018, with both the Trial Court and the High Court upholding the conviction and life sentence.
However, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, noting that there was substantial doubt about the appellant’s mental condition at the time of the offence. The Court emphasised that a person of unsound mind cannot be held criminally liable, as they are unable to exercise their right to defend themselves—a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in setting aside the appellant’s conviction, referred to the precedent in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar, which held that while the prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can rebut the presumption of sanity by presenting relevant evidence, requiring a standard of proof similar to that in civil cases.
The Court further reiterated that even if legal insanity is not conclusively established, any evidence that raises a reasonable doubt about the existence of mens rea would entitle the accused to an acquittal.
“Therefore, the burden to prove legal insanity is on the accused. It is enough if a reasonable doubt is created about the mental state of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. The standard of proof to prove insanity is only a reasonable doubt,” the Court said.
The Court noted that witness depositions indicated concerns about the appellant’s mental condition before and after the incident. PW1, though not an eyewitness, stated that the appellant had episodes of madness known to the villagers, while PW2, an eyewitness, confirmed his unstable behavior—yet the prosecution did not seek their re-examination.
The Court observed that it was surprising that the prosecution did not move the Trial Court for a medical examination of the appellant after such evidence had come on record.
The Court found the medical examination conducted in December 2023, more than five years after the incident, to be meaningless in determining the appellant’s condition at the time of the offence.
