Section 84 Plea Never Works in Practice - The Sattanath Ji Case
crpc_bnss clat_ug intermediate judgment_takeI just got back from my friend's wedding and I am still on a high discussing this IPC case - Sattanath Ji vs State of MP (2017) 5 SCC 414. So, the guy claims he is a mad person (Section 84 plea) and hence cannot be held liable for the murder. On the surface, it seems like a pretty good defence, but trust me, it never flies in court. The SC upheld his conviction and I just can't see why.
The guy's family had been noticing a change in his behavior for years, so, it's not like he was suddenly snapped into madness. Moreover, the medical evidence didn't support his claim. In fact, his own doctor testified against him, saying he was perfectly sane. The court was right in rejecting his Section 84 plea.
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Bhaiyo, I am with you on this! Section 84 defence rarely holds water in courts. The Sattanath Ji case you mentioned is a classic example. The court rejected the defence saying the accused knew the right from wrong, despite being unwell. In practice, it's more about establishing mens rea rather than 'unsound mind'. We need to see more realistic applications of this section in judgments.