Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat on 19 March, 1964

The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) The prosecution must have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial; (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence, oral, documentary Or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, can only be established from circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 272 - Full Document
1