The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Alphonsa Saldanha—an accused in a 2020 double murder case—who had sought to claim legal insanity as a defence. Justice M I Arun held that a mere plea of unsoundness of mind is not enough and ruled that the burden lies on the accused to demonstrate lack of mental capacity at the time of committing the offence.

Insanity plea must meet strict legal standards, says court

In his petition, Saldanha claimed he did not possess the requisite mens rea when he allegedly killed Vincent D’Souza and Helen D’Souza in April 2020 in the presence of their two children. The accused had sought further medical scrutiny to establish unsoundness of mind and filed applications before the trial court seeking examination under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with another plea under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

While in judicial custody, Saldanha had undergone an evaluation by a prison psychiatrist. Relying on this single examination, he argued that the Mental Healthcare Act obligated courts to refer cases for further medical scrutiny whenever proof of mental illness was produced during judicial proceedings.

Trial court found no evidence supporting unsoundness of mind

The trial court rejected both applications in 2023, stating that one-time psychiatric examination was insufficient to draw any conclusions on the mental state of the accused at the time of the offence. The court emphasised that expert opinion must be based on more comprehensive assessment and cannot rely on an isolated consultation.

Challenging this decision, Saldanha approached the High Court, reiterating that his mental condition during the alleged crime had not been properly assessed. However, the High Court was not convinced.

High Court: Accused failed to prove incapacity at the time of offence

Justice Arun observed that under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which governs the insanity defence in India, the critical factor is the mental state at the time of the act, not at the time of trial or subsequent evaluations. The accused must show that he was incapable of understanding the nature of his actions or distinguishing right from wrong.

“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,” the court stated.

The High Court pointed out that the petitioner failed to present evidence on his conduct before, during, or after the alleged killings—evidence that is essential in establishing unsoundness of mind.

Single psychiatric examination inadequate, rules bench

The court noted that the defence had called only one psychiatrist, referred to as DW6, who had examined Saldanha once. Importantly, no specific questions were posed to the expert regarding the accused’s mental capacity at the time of the offence.

“Nowhere in the examination-in-chief is a question 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,” Justice Arun observed.

The court also stated that the accused’s own statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, along with testimonies of other witnesses, did not support the claim of insanity.

Conclusion

Dismissing the petition, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that the defence failed to produce substantive material required to invoke Section 84 of the IPC. The case will now proceed before the trial court without the benefit of an insanity defence. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s consistent position that insanity pleas must be supported by solid, contemporaneous evidence—especially in cases involving grave offences such as murder.