Section 84 Plea - A Misguided Defence
criminal ailet intermediate judgment_takeOkay, so I was reading the famous case of 'Ritesh Sinha vs. State of UP' (2011 10 SCC 476), where the Supreme Court dealt with the Section 84 plea of the accused. You know, the plea of 'unsound mind' or 'mental retardation' to escape culpability?
In this case, the accused Ritesh was charged with murder, but his defence was that he was mentally retarded and thus not liable under Section 84 of the IPC. The Court rejected his plea, saying that the defence had not established the 'unsoundness of mind' beyond a reasonable doubt.
What's interesting here is that the Court stated that the burden of proving 'unsoundness of mind' lies on the accused, not the prosecution. If the accused fails to prove this, then Section 84 cannot be invoked. Period.
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Section 84 plea is not always a misguided defence, yaar. Sometimes, it's a valid ground for acquittal. Mental illness can affect a person's ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, as stated in the section. But, often, this defence is misused or not properly substantiated by the accused. We need to examine each case on its merits, considering the medical evidence and the circumstances of the crime.