The ingredients of Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code can only be taken as a defence during
trial. It is not possible to throw out the Final Report in
a case on the ground that the concerned accused was
suffering from legal insanity. The legal insanity has to
be proved by the concerned accused, who is harping
upon such a defence. The standard of proof required
is only by proof through preponderance of probabilities
and not proof beyond doubt. Matters being so, the
present stage is too premature to consider those
aspects.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
28TH DAY OF JULY 2016
Crl.MC.No. 4789 of 2016 ()
R. ASHOK KUMAR,
V
STATE OF KERALA,
Citation:2016 CRLJ4765
The petitioner is the 1st accused in these cases.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
3. The petitioner is mainly attacking the Final
Report in these cases on the ground that he was
suffering from legal insanity at the time when the
offences had allegedly taken place. It has been
pointed out that he was a chronic alcoholic and due to
continued alcoholism, he became totally insane both
medically as well as legally.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the petitioner was not aware of the nature
and quality of the acts done by him during the period
in question and that he was not aware whether he was
doing something wrong or contrary to law. Precisely,
the petitioner is harping upon the defence that could
be taken under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI
has vehemently opposed these Crl.M.Cs on two
grounds. The first ground is that it is not correct to
say that the petitioner was suffering from any sort of
insanity. The second ground is that the plea of insanity
within the meaning of Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code is one coming under the general exceptions in
the Indian Penal Code, and the same could be taken
as a defence only at the stage of trial. Therefore,
according to the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI,
the present stage is too premature to consider those
aspects.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited the attention of this Court to the decision in
Sankaran v. State of Kerala [1993 (2) KLT 852];
wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code could be attracted
only in a case, wherein by reason of unsoundness of
mind, such a person was incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that he was doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law, at the time of doing the act.
The said proposition is based on the difference of
medical insanity as well as legal insanity. In the
decision noted supra, it was also held that the burden
on the accused to establish legal insanity is not the
very same as being expected from the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused.
7. In order to establish the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has to prove the offence
beyond doubt. At the same time, in order to establish
legal insanity and to take shelter under Section 84 of
the Indian Penal Code, an accused is not expected to
prove legal insanity beyond doubt. What is expected
is proof through mere preponderance of probabilities.
In the decision noted supra, it was held that in order to
satisfy the legal insanity, the standard of proof
required is the standard of a prudent man to note
down whether he was legally insane or not.
8. The ingredients of Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code can only be taken as a defence during
trial. It is not possible to throw out the Final Report in
a case on the ground that the concerned accused was
suffering from legal insanity. The legal insanity has to
be proved by the concerned accused, who is harping
upon such a defence. The standard of proof required
is only by proof through preponderance of probabilities
and not proof beyond doubt. Matters being so, the
present stage is too premature to consider those
aspects.
9. The aforesaid ground taken up by the
petitioner is left open. This Court has not considered
the matter on merits. This Court has not considered
the question as to whether the petitioner was legally
insane or not. The said question is left open to be
decided by the court below at appropriate stage.
With liberty to the petitioner to take up the
very same contention before the trial court at
appropriate stage, these Crl.M.Cs are disposed of.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA,
JUDGE.
Print Page
Penal Code can only be taken as a defence during
trial. It is not possible to throw out the Final Report in
a case on the ground that the concerned accused was
suffering from legal insanity. The legal insanity has to
be proved by the concerned accused, who is harping
upon such a defence. The standard of proof required
is only by proof through preponderance of probabilities
and not proof beyond doubt. Matters being so, the
present stage is too premature to consider those
aspects.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
28TH DAY OF JULY 2016
Crl.MC.No. 4789 of 2016 ()
R. ASHOK KUMAR,
V
STATE OF KERALA,
Citation:2016 CRLJ4765
The petitioner is the 1st accused in these cases.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
3. The petitioner is mainly attacking the Final
Report in these cases on the ground that he was
suffering from legal insanity at the time when the
offences had allegedly taken place. It has been
pointed out that he was a chronic alcoholic and due to
continued alcoholism, he became totally insane both
medically as well as legally.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the petitioner was not aware of the nature
and quality of the acts done by him during the period
in question and that he was not aware whether he was
doing something wrong or contrary to law. Precisely,
the petitioner is harping upon the defence that could
be taken under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI
has vehemently opposed these Crl.M.Cs on two
grounds. The first ground is that it is not correct to
say that the petitioner was suffering from any sort of
insanity. The second ground is that the plea of insanity
within the meaning of Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code is one coming under the general exceptions in
the Indian Penal Code, and the same could be taken
as a defence only at the stage of trial. Therefore,
according to the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI,
the present stage is too premature to consider those
aspects.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited the attention of this Court to the decision in
Sankaran v. State of Kerala [1993 (2) KLT 852];
wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code could be attracted
only in a case, wherein by reason of unsoundness of
mind, such a person was incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that he was doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law, at the time of doing the act.
The said proposition is based on the difference of
medical insanity as well as legal insanity. In the
decision noted supra, it was also held that the burden
on the accused to establish legal insanity is not the
very same as being expected from the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused.
7. In order to establish the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has to prove the offence
beyond doubt. At the same time, in order to establish
legal insanity and to take shelter under Section 84 of
the Indian Penal Code, an accused is not expected to
prove legal insanity beyond doubt. What is expected
is proof through mere preponderance of probabilities.
In the decision noted supra, it was held that in order to
satisfy the legal insanity, the standard of proof
required is the standard of a prudent man to note
down whether he was legally insane or not.
8. The ingredients of Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code can only be taken as a defence during
trial. It is not possible to throw out the Final Report in
a case on the ground that the concerned accused was
suffering from legal insanity. The legal insanity has to
be proved by the concerned accused, who is harping
upon such a defence. The standard of proof required
is only by proof through preponderance of probabilities
and not proof beyond doubt. Matters being so, the
present stage is too premature to consider those
aspects.
9. The aforesaid ground taken up by the
petitioner is left open. This Court has not considered
the matter on merits. This Court has not considered
the question as to whether the petitioner was legally
insane or not. The said question is left open to be
decided by the court below at appropriate stage.
With liberty to the petitioner to take up the
very same contention before the trial court at
appropriate stage, these Crl.M.Cs are disposed of.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA,
JUDGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment