Accused cannot take defence of insanity in murder case citing Depression: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that depression cannot be used as the basis for a defence of 'legal insanity' in murder cases [Vijayamma v State of Kerala].The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that legal insanity, as provided in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), differs from medical insanity. Section 84 says that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.The Court said that legal insanity under Section 84 requires proof that mental illness affected the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong and it is not enough that one has a mental health condition."Though Section 84 of the IPC provides for an exception, it would not automatically apply in all cases of mental illness. There should be evidence of the mental state of the accused at the time of the offence, based on his/her behaviour before, during, and after the commission of the act. It should be borne in mind that it is not medical insanity but legal insanity that must be proven. It would not be enough to show that the accused was suffering from some mental illness to claim exemption from liability. On the other hand, the materials should suggest that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her act or that it was wrong or contrary to law," the Court explained. The Court made the observation while considering a case in which a murder convict raised the legal insanity defence on the basis of her history of depression.The Court held that in the absence of any proof that her mental illness affected her ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, she can't claim to have been of unsound mind as required under Section 84 of the IPC."We are of the view that recurrent depressive disorder with poor treatment adherence, will not qualify the appellant to enable her to meet the legal threshold for insanity. There is no material to show that the mental depression that the appellant was suffering had significantly impaired her ability to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong," the Court's judgment stated. .The judgment was passed on an appeal moved by the woman challenging the decision of a trial Court to convict and sentence her to life imprisonment for strangling and killing her 12-year-old nephew in 2013.According to the prosecution, the accused killed the child to prevent her brother from reconciling with his estranged wife, with whom the accused was not on good terms. She hoped that her brother’s troubled marriage would discontinue if the child was dead, and she took drastic steps to ensure the same by strangling the child with a pyjama string while he was asleep..Before the High Court, the woman's counsel argued that she had no reason to harm her nephew and that she was not aware of the consequences of her actions due to her mental state.It was also submitted that she has been suffering from mental health conditions since 1985..The Court, however, noted that on the day of the murder, she was upset that her father had refused her financial assistance even though he was willing to support her brother's estranged wife. This, the Court suggested, showed that the woman was frustrated and motivated to commit the murder. It also noted that although she might have suffered from depression, she managed to live and work normally over the years, with no signs that her mental state prevented her from understanding the consequences of her actions.The Court further observed that the woman had not provided enough evidence to show that she was legally insane at the time of the murder.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld her conviction and sentence by the trial court. .The appellant was represented by advocate Nandagopal S Kurup.Public Prosecutor Neema TV appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]