My Lord, Mental Illness and Crime? Post-Conviction Mental Illness?

“It is well acknowledged fact throughout the world, prisons are difficult places to be in. Piare Dusadh v. King Emperor, AIR 1944 FC 1 has already recognized ‘post-conviction mental illness’ as a mitigating factor. It must be recognized, ‘insanity’ recognized under IPC and ‘mental illness’ we are considering in present case arise at a different stage and time. Section 84, IPC relates to mens rea at time of commission of crime, whereas plea of ‘post-conviction mental illness’ is based on appreciation of punishment and right to dignity [Refer, Amrit Bhushan Gupta, AIR 1977 SC 608].

We note, there appear to be no set disorders/disabilities for evaluating ‘severe mental illness’ [Section 3, The Mental Health Care Act, 2017]. However, a ‘test of severity’ can be a guiding factor for recognizing those ‘mental illness’ which qualify for an exemption. Therefore, test envisaged herein predicates, an offfender needs to have a severe ‘mental illness’ or disability, which simply means a medical professional would objectively consider illness to be most serious so that he cannot understand or comprehend nature and purpose behind imposition of such punishment. These disorders generally include schizophrenia, other serious psychotic disorders, and dissociative disorders-with schizophrenia. The ‘post-conviction severe mental illness’ will be a mitigating factor that Appellate Courts, in appropriate cases, needs to consider while sentencing to Death Penalty.

Life Imprisonment; No Remission.”

– Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, X v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2007].

_____

It is settled, standard of proof to prove ‘lunacy’ or ‘insanity’ is only ‘reasonable doubt’. For this, we may profitably refer to Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361. Also, Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 718 and Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 533. Since ‘insanity’ or ‘unsoundness’ of mind has not been defined in Penal Code, it carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of ‘mental disorder’. A distinction is to be made between ‘legal insanity’ and ‘medical insanity’. Court is concerned with ‘legal insanity’ and not with ‘medical insanity’.

– Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2069-2079 of 2022] decided on 13.09.2023.