Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I.ARUN
Alphonsa Saldana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Through The Inspector Of Police, Mulki Police Station – Respondent
ORDER :
M.I. ARUN, J.
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writs or orders, quashing the impugned order dated 28-12-2023 which is produced as Annexure 'A', passed by Hon'ble I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, D.K at Mangaluru in S.C.No.69/2020, consequently allowing the said applications produced as Annexure H and Annexure J and
b. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.69/2020, pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. The petitioner is accused of murdering one Sri. Vincent D'Souza and one Smt. Helen D'Souza by stabbing. The petitioner has admitted, killing of the said two persons but has pleaded the defence of insanity before the trial Court. He has examined eight defence witnesses and has got marked certain exhibits through them. DW6 is the psychiatrist who has treated the petitioner in prison. He has not examined any other psychiatrist. The petitioner has filed two applications, one under Section 45 of the I
Insanity defense must be substantiated by adequate evidence of unsoundness at the time of offense; mere assertion is insufficient to shift the burden of proof.
Point of Law : Section 105 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 deals with procedure to be followed in a judicial process where any proof of mental illness of a person is produced.
The court emphasized the right to present a defense and the importance of examining pertinent evidence to resolve issues regarding the accused's mental state.
The court established that under the Mental Health Act, 1987, a judicial inquiry into the mental capacity of an individual is essential when there are allegations of mental incapacity affecting legal....
(1) Mental insanity of accused – Existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to applicability of provision – Mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowi....
Accused's fitness to stand trial must be thoroughly examined, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements while allowing opportunity for defense representation.
An accused can be exonerated if not aware of wrongfulness due to unsoundness of mind, requiring examination of circumstantial behavior surrounding the crime.
The burden of proving unsoundness of mind as a defence lies with the accused, and must be established at the time of the offence, which was not satisfied in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
