 From what we say in England, the concept of where it has emerged regarding the defenses of unsoundness and whether the mental insanity and the sanity as such, is there a subtle difference between legal sanity? Is there any subtle difference between the two? These are the certain broader contours upon which wherein we have requested. Mr Vishwanath Angiri, a former principal judge from Bangalore, to share his insights and those who have been connected with Beyond Law CLC know it very well that we have taken sessions with Mr Angiri on different topics, normally which we don't find as such even on the YouTube etc. And he has always been kind enough to share his knowledge on such aspects which I can only say that as the holy season is coming, as holy he has different colours just like akin to a rainbow. He also shares his different knowledges and when we actually go through and try the same, it gives us a bright colours and a more sense of happiness while we hear to his talks and his knowledge. So taking much time I would request Mr Angiri to take over. Over to you sir. Thank you Mr Vikas. Thank you the esteemed men in the department who are logged in. Wish you all a very happy holy. I hope today you must have observed and it may go on even for a week or so. The topic for discussion is rather very interesting. In a case before a criminal court, in many times the accused sets up the plea of insanity. He contents that the accused was of unsound mind when the act or owed act was coveted. And more so in grave offenses, this defense is taken rather in my experience invariably. What about duty of the prosecution to dispel the ground of attack made by the accused? To say that the act he did was on account of mental delusion. What about duty of Contel for the accused to prove this aspect of insanity of the accused at the time of the accident? As you all know the IPC contains a chapter called as general exceptions. The restrictions 76 to 106 both include you. There were about this section regarding section 84 of the IPC which speaks of the aspect of act of a person of unsound mind. When the accused can seek shelter under this exception and the court in many times requires acquittal accused. Even though the act was complete, the man who was to be stabbed, he is no more. So my endeavor is to take briefly the backdrop as to how we are on our statute book 84 of the IPC. And before that I trace the history of the particular law in England because I borrowed virtually the entire text of the IPC which was enacted in 1860. Even though 160 years plus have passed this IPC has very little amendments except now we speak of electronic evidence, we speak of something else. But in basics they have remained unaltered. I will put you some questions. They cannot talk with you physically like a classroom, but the doubts which the council for the accused or the prosecution or the IOs or even the courts may have in their mind in the sphere of how to give effect to or how to grant the benefit of the accused being insane or being a person of unsound mind at the time of confusion of the offense. Whether contact of the accused prior to the incident, at the time when he committed the incident and post contact of the incident, are they also relevant or not. Contact prior to, contact at the time of the offense committed and conduct after or subsequent to the date at the time of offense are they important or not. Number one, what the IPC says at the time of the incident he must have that mental delusion whether before or after the incident whether mental disability of the accused can the court or the IOs is required to examine the first one. Number two is what about degree of proof how the accused shall prove this burden cast upon him. Is it on par with degree of proof which the prosecution must discharge in every case that is proof beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the general criminal law every offense is said to be committed by an accused when you are sane and the general law on the point is the prosecution shall prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Whether this same same elastic applies to the aspect of proof of insanity by the accused before a general court or not or is it something lesser or is it the same or what about the standard of proof. Which the accused must go forward to prove and seek the benefit of 84 of the ABC. The third point is in a given case of the apex court plea of insanity was taken before the apex court Supreme Court of India for the first time. Whether in the appeal before the High Court or appeal before the appellate courts or appeal before the Supreme Court of India can this plea of insanity or that used being of uncertain mind. Can it be raised for the first time during the appeal stage or not. What about law on this point. The next point is we have got two types of what are called insanity. Firstly, what is called as legal. Number two, what is called as mental. Both have got separate and distinct meanings. And we have got case law of the apex court on the point. Which insanity is it legal or mental with which we are concerned while holding a criminal trial. Can a judge hold that yes the accused was having mental incapacity, insanity and can a acquit the accused. Or what about the aspect of insanity which the court must look into is it legal insanity or mental insanity. The rest important question is the Ivo after arrest of the accused comes to know that this accused in fact is not behaving properly. Or before he is produced before or the time when he produced before the magistrate after the fire for obtaining the remand order. Either police custody or JCS the case may be the magistrate notes in the order sheet about mental condition. So what about duty on the part of the magistrates duty of the police. Once the fire is lost against the accused what duty they have to perform is also matter which has to be seen. The last important study of the facet is the Ivo in a given case does not produce medical records with regard to the past history of the particular accused. Who did the or that. And in the course of the trial the defense techniques defense of insanity. So whether the accused on account of the offense not being proved be and all with them a lot and if some doubt is created in the mind of the court. Can court extend the benefit of doubt to the accused or not. So with this the next point is 84 of IPC. 84 of IPC says nothing is an offense which is done by a person who while he did the act or or that was of unsound mind. So on account of unsoundness of mind if an act is committed then the section says and one more point is he must not be capable of knowing the nature of act as to what is doing is wrong or contrary to law. So here the words used as acts must be wrong or act should be contrary to law. If anyone of these things the case falls when the accused committed the old act he can seek the benefit of 84 of the IPC. So how to prove this important element accused being unwell in mind number one not knowing nature of acts. Number three is what is wrong or what is contrary to law he is not able to distinguish. If these things are fulfilled then the court shall acquit the accused if there is proper evidence let him buy the prosecution. So the word I mean there is no definition of the phrase unsoundness of mind used in 84 of the IPC. IPC has not defined the phrase what's called as unsoundness of mind in the beginning of the court. And as per courts unsoundness of mind is on par or is equal to what is called as insanity. So insanity or what is called as unsoundness of mind they are used simultaneously they are used as corollary and that they stand in only one important compartment. So insanity is used to describe varying degrees of mental order. So with this brief I mean statement with regard to the aspect of 84 of the IPC or not take quickly about the origin of the law of insanity in UK. The first case is namely Rex versus Arnold of 1724. In this case they laid down the test called as wild based test. In this case Edward Arnold attempted to kill and even owned one lord on slope and was tried. Accused for suffering from mental disorder and in the trial the court could notice that he could not distinguish as to what is good or evil and did not know what he did though he committed the greatest of the offense. So in this case the court held that if the accused was of unsound mind and could not distinguish what is good from evil did not know nature of the act committed the court held that accused shall be acquitted. This is called as the wild based test not able to distinguish what is good or what is evil and the accused not knowing nature of act committed. So the second case is Hadfield trial as it is called commonly in the case of 1800. In this case it is called as insane delusion test. Hadfield was discharged from army because of insanity and mental disorder. He was tried for treason in attempting to assassinate King George III. Counsel appearing for the accused through that Hadfield only pretended to kill the king and is not guilty because he was insane when he committed the over that. The court stated this case that insanity is determined by the fact of fixed insane delusion and set delusion under which the accused acted is the main reason of the crime. So there is the second case insane delusion test. The third case is what is called as Bowler's case of 1812. In this case the court held that the jury in England has to decide when the accused committed the offensive whether he was capable of distinguishing what is right from wrong or under mental illness. So here the point is whether the accused is able to distinguish what is right from wrong. This is the case on the yellow point. The last case is MacNoughton's case of 1843. In this case the accused MacNoughton was suffering from persecution mania. And because of this he thought that whatever difficulties he is facing is because of British Prime Minister Robert Pell Pell. And here this MacNoughton shot dead the private secretary of the Prime Minister by name Drummond. And he thought that he is killing the Prime Minister but by mistake he shot at the private secretary of the PM. And in this case this thing happened when MacNoughton was sick. He pleaded in Sandy before the House of Lords and House of Lords consisting of 15 judges that decided the particular point of law. Out of 15 14 judges concurred that the accused MacNoughton was suffering from mental disorder and acquitted the accused. So here he was not able to distinguish what is right from wrong. In this case they laid out four principles and they are ingrained in section 84 of the IPC. First point is if the person knew what he was doing or was under a partial delusion then he is punishable. Number two is there is presumption in law that every person is prudent or sane and knows that what he is doing and he is responsible for his act. The third important principle of the case is to establish depends of insanity at the time of commission of the offence. The accused was in such a state of mind that he was unable to know nature of act committed by him. So that point is accused should know that he was not able to assess the nature of the act which he is committing. The fourth important principle is it is for the jury to determine whether the defendant or the accused was suffering from insanity and evidence from medical experts on insanity cannot be asked for by the prosecution. So with this brief prelude, I will take note quickly case laws on the point. The latest case law of the Supreme Court not very latest. It is now nearly three years old by second of July of this year. This is a very important case where the largest of the report of India have touched various legal facets with regard to the plea of insanity. So the case is Davidas Loka Rathod versus state of Maharashtra. That is 2018 part seven Supreme Court cases page 718718. The judgment is bent on by the states Naveen Sinha and another and here the plea of what's called as unsoundness of mind was raised. By the accused in the criminal case before the court of sessions. I will tell you the brief facts because saying principles will be of no use for me unless I tell you the brief facts of the case. I'll take only two minutes if we know the facts properly because I appreciate various facets which the court is required to consider to give benefit of the. In this case, the offense took place on 26 92006, where in the accused Davidas picked up a sickle from the floor of shop of and I am Smith attempted to assault. 11 bullet power but which injured three Santosh Jado one more injured on the same day he later assaulted three bullets or author and he further blow on the stomach and back of the deceased Harish. So it's case of death of a person is written to three persons. And when he later tried to intervene, so the accused tried to run and to sickle on the way. So the accused after assault killing Harish and injuring three persons he ran right to run through sickle on the way and the villagers apprehended the accused and handed over the accused to the police for further enquiry. And here the police upon full fledged investigation while charged before the court at Akola and the defense raised was defense of insanity. So the trial court did not accept the evidence of DW one Dr. Sagar with whom the accused examine and that after the matter taken to the high court by the accused high court also confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The second appeal by the accused before Supreme Court of India the highest court. Went through judgments of two content courts and based on materials on record acquitted the accused on the plea of insanity which the accused had raised before the trial court. So the judgment of the trial court judgment of the high court which confirmed the event of the trial court was at a site by Supreme Court and the best court invoked 84 of the ABC and the good was set free from the charges. So in this case various facts came into consideration before the Fx court. The Fx court touched various factors. I will tell one by one all these factors are based on case law on the relevant point. The first point is appellant was very pure was very poor. He had very less means appellant was very poor. He had engaged council of district legal services authority at the trial court and he raised services of high court legal services committee of high court legal cell. So in both the courts the accused could not engage good council. He engaged council of the legal services institutions that is number one point. The second point is the are you arrested accused on 26 9 2006. So upon the offense the villages apprehended police came they arrested. I mean the police took custody of the accused and the police took accused custody on 28 9 after two days from the date of apprehension. So for two days the police did not arrest the accused because the accused was not well and was taken to hospital for treatment. After incident police apprehended and for two days they did not produce accused before the magistrate. They took him to hospital for treatment. So this is one of the important things. So number three is because here the point is treatment was there for mental illness. This point I would not tell to the trial court. The third point is information of arrest was not given by the police to the sister and mother of the accused who were very much their mother and the sister and the accused were living together. Upon arrest of upon apprehension of the accused the information was given to the friend of the accused but not to the sister and mother of the accused and this particular friend was not examined by the prosecution. I am saying you all these things because on all these things all these important facts the Supreme Court of India disturbed the order of connection rendered by the trial court and the high court. And one more point was that there was previous history of insanity this point the police overlook. One more point is the apex court in this case observed it was the duty of the IO honest investigators to subject accused to medical examination immediately and place everywhere for the court. In this case the IO's felt that the accused on apprehension was unable to respond properly. They referred him to hospital for two days but the police did not produce medical records of treatment for two days in the hospital. The apex court observed that it creates serious doubt in the mind of the court and there is serious infirmity in the case of prosecution. So in this case on all these important factors the accused prayed the apex court to give to him benefit of doubt. In the opening section 84 of the ABC and in this case the apex court to tend to the various facts of various cases involving the ratios on the point of section 84 only and they are more than 10 in number on those judgments of the apex court the apex court made use of in writing the judgment. So the first point is namely in the case of Bapu versus state of Rajasthan 2007 part 6 SSCC page number 66 the case the prosecution deliberately withheld relevant evidence regarding mental illness of the accused. His mental illness at the time of the assault being committed and the accused requiring immediate in-care treatment in hospital after assault and there was hindering of arrest and the report of diagnosis the report of treatment evidence of treating doctor all were not produced before the court. So in that case that is Bapu versus state of Rajasthan as I told you the apex court held that it cast doubt on the credibility of the case of prosecution. And when the court gets reasonable doubt the apex court held in that case that condition of mind of the accused is an important point involved and important Laguna is there in the case of prosecution because prosecution did not produce medical records of the accused after his apprehension. He going to hospital for treatment all those things so in this case the apex court gave to the accused benefit of doubt and equate the accused. So the Supreme Court of India in this case also made use of the ratio of the apex court in the case of Bapu versus state of Rajasthan 2007 part 6 part 8 SSCC page number 66. The second point which the apex court in this case observed is that law presumes every person committing an offense as sane and liable for his acts that is the mantra of 84 of the IPC and that it is for the accused to prove that he was insane when they committed the offense. So the question is regarding burden of proof on whom it lies so the apex court held in this case that but an up but an uproof lies on the accused and for that the Supreme Court case lies. Daya Bhai Daya Bhai Tucker versus state of Gujarat AIR 1964 Supreme Court page number 1563 so with regard to the aspect of but an uproof what about case law but an uproof on the prosecution but an uproof on the accused both are different. As per the apex court decision in the above case the apex court held that prosecution shall prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so there is no other excuse prosecution shall prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that is the first important thing. Second point is that the prosecution should prove that this act was completed by the accused and he had mentally and burden rest on the prosecutions from beginning till the end of trial. Number two is the reputable assumption that accuser was not insane when he committed the offense 84 comes here accused and reputed by saint court that he was insane when he was of when he committed the over tact so the accused shall prove that he was insane when he committed the act. Number one number two must lead evidence either oral or documentary or even other events also but here the apex court held burden of proof on the accused is not as of the prosecution namely proof beyond all reasonable doubt. So in alias accused the burden of proof is no higher than that rest upon a party to a civil proceedings before the regular civil court so but an uproof on the accused is at a lower level compared to but an uproof on the prosecution which is the burden proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The third important point which the best court laid on in the case of the guy by Tucker is namely even accused not able to establish conclusively that he was insane accused he's not able to prove conclusively that when the over tact was committed he was insane or he had mental disorder. But still the best court held that if the evidence placed by the court before the court raises a reasonable doubt in the might of a court. As regards one or more features of the offense namely including the feature of man Syria. And in that case court has to acquit the accused by giving to the accused what is called as benefit of doubt. So accused need not prove conclusively that he was insane but if he used to court some material to show that he was unsound in mind when he did the over tact then the accused shall get the benefit of doubt and he shall be acquitted of the charge. So this case law also the best court made use of in acquitting the accused in the case of which we are concerned. The next point is honest of proof under section 105 of Indian evidence act as of persecution is tested beyond reasonable doubt. So honest of proof on the persecution is that is proof beyond all reasonable doubt. That is also a thing which the best court discussed the above case. The best court made use of vision of the set court in the case of Surendra Mishra versus state of Jarkhand 2011 part 11 Supreme Court cases page number 495. So accused only has to establish his defense regarding insanity. Accused establish the plea of insanity on preponderance of probability after which the honest will shift on the prosecution to establish that exception is not applicable to the facts of the case. So burden on the accused if discharged then the honest shifts on the persecution and persecution shall dislodge the burden of proof which the accused submitted regarding his mental condition as on the rate of the offense. The best court also took note of a decision in the case of state of Rajasthan versus share around 2012 part one SSCC page number 602. In this case the best court held that it is not every and any plea of uncertainness of mind of the accused that will suffice. The standard of test to be applied is what is called as legal insanity and not medical insanity. According to the question with its insanity we are concerned the best court held were concerned with legal insanity but not medical insanity. The best court held in the case of share around that it is not every and any plea of mind of accused being unsolved that will suffice but the standard of test is namely of legal insanity and not medical insanity. The best court held that once a person is found suffering from the mental illness or mental disorder or mental deficiency which includes dementia, loss of memory, self control and at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence. The person concerned is entitled to seek the benefit of 84 of the IPC. So here the point is we are concerned with legal insanity and not medical insanity. The next point is what is called as the best court also discussed in that case the case law of the apex court in Ratan Lal versus state of young 1970 part three SSCC page number 190. In this case the best court lead on the ratio that defense of insanity has to be with regard to state of the accused at the time the act was committed and evidence of contact of accused that preceded attended and followed the crime. So this case the best court lead on that accused mental condition shall be number one as on the time and date of the offense become a date number two also the previous to the rate of the offense and also subsequent to the rate of offense and follow the crime. So accused to show that he was unsung when the accused committed the offense. So court can see look into the health of the accused regarding mental health prior to incident when offense occurred. Number three after the incident. So that is the aspect of the leadership in Ratan Lal versus state of the MP. The next important case which the best court in the ever case mirrors off is the facts of the ratio of Vijay Vijay Singh versus the state of UP 1990 part three Supreme Court cases page number 190. In a case in case the best court held that if from the materials on record before the court if there is a reasonable doubt as regards the mental condition of the accused when the offense committed. Then the best court held that the accused shall be given the benefit of 84 of the PC. So the best court held that if some doubt is created in the mind of the court regarding the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence. He shall be required to be acquitted and court should put him what's called as benefit of doubt. So that is the case law of the best court in Vijay Singh versus state of the with all this case law in mind the best court in the case with which we're concerned that is I have told you the cases of 2018. I told you the brief facts also. So here the apex court. In the case of David Loka Rathore versus state of Maharashtra after discussing all these legal issues in this case upset judgment of. Conviction of the trial court there meant of conviction offered by the High Court and acquitted the accused because the accused was not mentally well when he committed the particular act of over that of killing of a person and injuring three persons. So in this case the best court held in the Davis case that in this case one more point was injured witnesses of the accused in the court told that the accused was not mentally well. So as we all know in many cases the court will not believe evidence of the injured witnesses who are close relatives. In this case the best court held in case the accused was mentally ill or unwell. It is only the accused it is only the accused relatives father or mother or sister or mother who knows more about the health of the accused mentally on the rate of incident. Prior to it and the best court held merely because the injured witnesses say that he was on mine or merely because rate of saying court that the accused was not mentally well the court cannot discard their evidence. So the best court held the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt exists from the beginning till end of trial if some doubt is created then the court shall acquit the accused. In this case the points in the world namely medical visits of the accused to hospital in the prison for treatment. This one was not filed along with the charges, records of treatment in the hospital of the prison and nature of tablets prescribed for cure of mental trauma. All these things were not brought before the court by the IO and the best court also did not consider did not appreciate the duty of IO. IO did not do the court the records of treatment of the accused. This one the court took it as a lacuna in the case of prosecution. So the deceased the accused the best court observed had pre-existing ailment for the period prior to the offense 26-9-2006. And in this case the accused had filed IA before the trial court under chapter 25 CRPC to by saying that he is not fit to face trial. As you all know the accused has right to file in the court application saying that he is not fit to face trial and if the court holds that accused is mentally unwell during trial the court shall postpone trial until the accused becomes alright mentally. So this case this factor also the trial court and high court did not go through and the best court held that all these lacuna in the case of prosecution and trial court also did not I mean your proper reasoning reasoning to commit the accused so the best court upset. One more point is sister and mother of the accused given court evidence regarding medical ailment that is mental trauma physical I mean what's called mental illusion and they told that at times they were tying up the accused with rope at home many at times. So because he was unable to get told and that they told that the accused was not taking care of his clothes also so all these things and one more point is accused and his family are from a poor strata the best court held that we cannot expect a poor accused or a poor family of the accused to maintain medicalously the medical records of treatment of the accused and leading expert evidence as per law so all these facts the best court took note of and held that doubt is created and the best court in this case took the view that order of trial court is bad enough and so on so the high court. One more point which the best court in this case took note of court shall put court questions to the witness for the prosecution to know whether the accused was of mental illness or not even during trial or before trial as the case may be so the best court. The best court took note of addition in the case of state of Afghanistan versus any there is a 1997 part six Supreme Court cases pay number 162 in that case the best court held that a judge should not be a mute spectator in the trial. The best court held that a judge should be dynamic he must be active during trial and court shall participate effectively in the trial and it is required materials for witnesses in appropriate cases to this case the best court held that the trial court did not put questions to the witnesses. To know whether the accused was mentally well or not as on the time of the offense or before it so the best court made use of. In addition in state of Afghanistan versus any that's also very important and it is held by the best court that it is. Granting to the accused out of equity giving to accused the benefit of doubt under law and eighty four of ABC was invoked by the apex court out of us by the trial court out of us by code where set aside the accused was set free after a long drawn battle. I went in 2006 the matter was called off in same beginning of 2019 so he fought battle for nearly 15 years but at the end of the day he was acquired by the apex court so this case. Tells in brief what are the necessities which involve in a trial of the case wherein the accused has set up the plea of insanity plea of what's called as. So for the prosecutors for advocate for the accused for the court also what care and caution they must take they must take appropriately he studied by the accused by the apex court in a very succinct manner. So the case of David also look at the state of the state of the state of the state of the state and discuss it the ratio of as many as 11 dishes of it of which I've discussed so my only appeal to the audience who might be advocates for scooters. Law school students or even sometimes judges also that what you can find the things which the apex court laid down very clearly in the case of David as local rato and with this I'll not take much of your time. I'll give a little bit of a given case to touch on the entities if because says I can just go further I will go further but in this case I go on the pre facture matrix are given the legal please involved and I've stated about role of judge role of the my state JFC also in the beginning role of I. role of prosecutor role of muscle for the accused and role of one court also so six or seven facets of working off the stakeholders was discussed by the apex court and as you all know apex court will rarely intervene and upset to do concurrent or resolve conviction or equity in this case the best best court examined thoroughly the entire factual matrix and even documentary evidence and later by writing a detailed judgment stating all these facts. 12 ratios of 12 cases are made use of by the best court in this case to state that the accused took steps to create doubt in the mind of the court that he is covered by the exception under section 84 of the ABC. So with that the rest important point with which I would like to touch I mean I will not be I mean I will just know that's only the few points because I've given you the case of the case of the previous son. The next part is 2020 part seven SSCC page number 391. One, Mohammed Anwar was a state in the city of Delhi. In this case, the accused produced Jarax copy of OPD card outpatient department card and mother of the accused. I think I went saying that my son was not well mentally quite long back and also as of the date of the offense. So OPD cheat OPD card of hospital was given to the court Jarax copy. Number two mother of accused gave to court I feel a bit evidence saying that my son was having mental illusion. So in this case, the upper spot help that the plea of insanity is not properly proved production of Jarax copy of OPD card and judgment of mother of accused by we have a very big cannot prove that accused was not well mentally as on the date and time of the incident. This is the case of Mohammed Anwar was a state in the city of Delhi. That is a very recent case that is 2020 part seven SSCC page number 391. In this case, the first court held that for the prosecution. They must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt for the accused. It is just preponderance of probability under section 105 of the evidence act. The next point is namely 2019 part 19 SSCC page number 797 Santosh Maruti money versus the state of Maharashtra. Here the first court held that conduct of the accused prior to the incident. Immediately prior to the incident during the incident and awareness during commission of the incident. All these things are material conduct of the accused prior to immediately prior to during the incident and awareness during the entire incident. They are relevant and honest is on the accused to prove that he was insane. In this case, the facts are very interesting. The accused was driver of state transport operation bus. He wanted he was not he did not want to night shift the bus. So he called with the department manager saying that don't give me tonight night shift. You're shifted on the next day in the morning as they shift and the department did not access to the request of the driver. So my duty was given. He was not given the day duty of the next day being upset. What he did is he took the bus in great speed inside the bus depot and there he ran over towards the persons who are in the bus depot. So they were killed and he took the bus outside the main road. There he killed six persons. So eight or nine persons were killed by him by use of the bus of the state corporation because the accused was not accommodated by the department manager in giving day shift in place of night shift fixed to him on that night. So this case was upset because the department manager did not accommodate him. In this case he raised the plea of insanity and his plea was not accepted by the trial court. High court was Supreme Court of India. Both courts gave finding that with intent he caused death of eight persons nine persons. So the plea of insanity was not granted by the Supreme Court of India also. So here the facts of that. Conduct prayer to conduct immediately of prayer to the incident during incident. See he caused death of eight seven o'clock again to pass to the main road killed eight persons who are going on the road. So in this case the first court held that see conduct prayer to see conduct when he committed the offense. See conduct during the course of the offense. All these things keep in mind and then go forward. The next case is with them. Nanda Ram. So mom she versus the state of Maharashtra. Very important case 2016 part 13 SSCC page number 205. In this case, the defense of insanity was set up. But facts of the case indicate after assault and death of a person that accused went home perform Pooja. So he prayed to God to kindly see that I am escaped. So he performed Pooja. He prepared tea. He had tea in court. His plea was I was having this mental illness about dangerous pride to the incident. And when the offense occurred, it relaxed him. The best court held this plea cannot be accepted because after incident they accused performed Pooja. So pray to almighty. Yes, he kindly say that I'm not caught and he prepared tea had good tea and he got more bigger. So in this case, the best court turned on request of the accused under section 84 of the IPC. Legal insanity versus medical insanity were concerned with only legal insanity, but not medical insanity. That is 2011 part 11 SSCC page number 495. Surendra Mishra versus state of Jharkhand. In this case, after incident of death of a person, the accused ran away and threw the weapon in a well to destroy evidence. This accused took open court. The plea that he was insane. The best court turned on. See, he was so fine. So meticulous. He killed and ran and while going, there was a well nearby. He threw the weapon in the well to see that the material release, the material of the offense is, I mean, destroyed. So the best court held that defense of insanity cannot be granted. I completed my slot of one hour if because wants to speak, wants to tell me to speak for some more time and we can speak. But the audience today is Sunday and they have performed. They have observed what you call color. I mean, what you call colorful holy. If there were questions, I'd be glad to answer. But I told you initial duty of the stakeholders, duty of police, duty of the court, duty of prosecution, duty on the part of the accused to prove that the accused had mental illness regarding standard of proof for the prosecution and for the accused. They are different. And we are only with the aspect of, I mean, it's not being legal, but not mental, mental, I mean, insanity. I've discussed you with you. The law on the fight, starting from law of England, ending with the best court judgment of the previous year. Yes, sir. Yes, as rightly put across by you that the niceties of this unsound mind and legal as to how to go about the legal insanity and mental insanity. There are several differences between the two have been nicely put across and rightly said by you, right from the England law, when the attack was on the Prime Minister, etc. You've taken us to the latest case law. And I'm seeing that you have explained in such a nice manner, rather than any question being posted, it's all thank you the way you expressed it. But in a lighter vein, there's one joke that a lawyer, a person goes to a lawyer, he says that kindly help me that I've committed a murder. How I have to say, he said the only way for you is that whenever we ask in Punjabi, they say you say for that it's like the bird has flown away. So any questions posed by him, he always said for and when by the end of the session, he was acquitted. The lawyer says kindly give my fees, the client says for. So that's the way sometimes you tutor a client for the purposes of examination process examination that how the mental sanity insanity could have been worked upon. And thank you to all the participants who have been watching us live on the Facebook, YouTube as well as on this platform. And as I said at the first brush when we introduced Mr. We angry that his sessions are quite insightful and on a different perspective, on which normally we don't find much material on the social media search. Insights, as we have seen way back from 1843 of the Magnetton case till 2020. He has taken us to the entire spectrum of the case law, we are all indebted for him, and do stay connected with us and keep on sharing like keep on sharing like and subscribe to our YouTube channel of beyond law CLC. We have uploaded all these webinars, and you can also like to our Facebook page as well as Instagram. So to have the latest updates. Thank you everyone, and all those participants who have enjoyed holy today. Best of our wishes from the team of beyond law and wherein the holy is tomorrow for them also happy holy in advance. Thank you everyone. Stay safe. And do take care that program is growing like anything. So take all the preventive measures, you can always enjoy the festival but the precautions are to be taken in the first brush. Thank you so once again. So thank you, because thank you all the participants. It was nice for me to, I mean, go through the case law on the point and tell you my focus is to see that the code does do the property. And it's also the accused advocate because I've given you various insights of a case are taken to a live case are given to the facts. Then I told you all the principles because saying just facts in simple words, or think only the principle of law in simple words is of no use unless we know the factual matrix. So I am very sure that you are benefited. If I got doubts, you're free to put to me either in the coming sessions where I may participate or you might take from three because my contact number. I'll be there to assist you. So thank you. Thank you very much. And I thank the cast once again for giving me the opportunity to spend one hour and share my knowledge to work. I work extensively as a trial court judge judge and have experience of varied characters. And these things, they're very important. Sometimes we miss them a case of acquittal, we get out of conviction, a guess of conviction with order of equity. So this case has set in all important entities of the law on section 84 of the APC only. So thank you. Namaste.