The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behavior leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf.
Held, Suffice it to say, that the evidence of the Government doctor as DW1 who withstood cross- examination ought to have been accepted. The mere fact that the appellant subsequently became fit to face the trial is sufficient enough to render an order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity. We do feel that both the Trial Court and the High Court were influenced by the nature of the act while ignoring the condition of the appellant and the fact that the burden on the accused is one of preponderance of probability. We have also been informed that the appellant has recovered fully and mixed well with the society.
- For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to give our imprimatur to the conviction rendered against the appellant as he is certainly entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 84 of the IPC.
- The order dated 25.07.2006 of the trial court of conviction and sentence of the appellant punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and the judgment and order dated 02.06.2008 of the High Court affirming the same are set aside. Para 27-29
(For impairment of cognitive faculties of mind rendering accused incapable of knowing nature of the act committed, legal insanity, not medical insanity, needs to be proved. Test of prudent man to be applied. Conduct of accused shortly before, at the time of and immediately after commission of crime, held, are relevant. )
[Prakash Nayi v. State of Goa, (2023) 5 SCC 673]