Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
48. ... ... ... ... ...
49. Therefore, by virtue of the conduct of the accused, from the date of offence till he was admitted in the mental hospital, there is nothing on record as to his past history. Further, Paranoid Schizophrenia, as already discussed, requires several other things to be proved. Since the ailment is basically of mild form, severity of the said ailment ought to have been proved by the accused himself unlike in other cases."
52. In another case decided in Mariappan v. State of Tamil Nadu6, as per the facts of the said case, in fact the accused was found suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was tried for committing the offence of murder of his wife. Similar defence that as he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia that he is not liable for punishment for committing the murder of his wife was taken. The Apex Court held that there is no evidence as to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant at the time of occurrence even though he was found to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
53. Therefore, the legal position is now clear that suffering from some mental ill-health like paranoid schizophrenia or aggressive nature or with irritation by itself cannot be a valid ground to construe that it is an ailment of unsoundness of mind on account of (2013) 12 SCC 270 26 CMR,J & TRR,J which the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him.
54. The burden to prove that he is suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the offence and that he is incapable of knowing the nature of act committed by him is on him under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. No doubt, the said burden is not as heavy as that of the prosecution to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt. The said burden can be discharged even by showing preponderance of probabilities from the evidence that is available on record.