Prima Facie Proof of Unsoundness of Mind as a Precondition for Reference under Section 105 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – Commentary on Mr. Alphonsa Saldana v. State of Karnataka

1. Introduction

This judgment of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 3773 of 2024, decided on 03 November 2025 by M.I. Arun J., addresses a recurring and sensitive question in criminal jurisprudence: under what circumstances is a criminal court obliged to refer an accused to a Mental Health Review Board (or other “Board” under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017) for assessment when a plea of insanity/mental illness is raised?

Two important strands of law intersect in this case:

The classical insanity defence under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with the burden rules in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and
The protective regime of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly Section 105, which mandates reference to a Board where “proof of mental illness” is produced and challenged.

The High Court is called upon to decide whether the Sessions Court erred in:

Refusing to send the accused for further expert psychiatric evaluation under Section 45 Evidence Act read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.; and
Refusing to refer the accused to the “concerned Board” under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The significance of the ruling lies in the Court’s articulation of a threshold requirement: for an accused who invokes Section 84 IPC to secure a reference under Section 105 MHCA, the accused must first adduce evidence that prima facie satisfies the stricter test of “unsoundness of mind” in Section 84, and only then, if the prosecution disputes it, does the court become bound to refer the matter to the Board.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 Parties

Petitioner / Accused: Mr. Alphonsa Saldana, aged 55, resident of Dakshina Kannada District, standing trial in S.C. No. 69/2020 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.
Respondent No. 1: State of Karnataka, represented by the Inspector of Police, Mulki Police Station, and the Public Prosecutor.
Respondent No. 2: Mrs. Leena D’Cunha, widow of late Bapist D’Cunha, presumably related to or interested in the deceased persons.

2.2 Allegations and Charge

The petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 69/2020, charged with the murder of:

Mr. Vincent D’Souza, and
Mrs. Helen D’Souza,

allegedly by stabbing.

Crucially, the petitioner admits the act of killing the two deceased, but sets up the defence of insanity, contending that at the time of the offence, he did not possess the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) owing to unsoundness of mind.

2.3 Defence of Insanity and Evidence Adduced

To support his plea of insanity under Section 84 IPC, the accused has:

Examined eight defence witnesses (DW1–DW8);
Produced and marked certain documents through them; and
Specifically, examined DW6, a psychiatrist who had treated the petitioner in prison.

The record shows that DW6 is the only psychiatrist examined on behalf of the defence. No other psychiatric expert was called. Defence evidence also includes:

The treated doctor (not necessarily a psychiatrist);
A neighbour; and
Medical documents and records concerning the accused.

2.4 The Two Interlocutory Applications Before the Trial Court

(a) Application under Section 45 Evidence Act read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.

In this application, the accused requested that:

“copies of medical records of year 2000 to 2002 and medical records procured from the jail and all the complaints filed by the accused against the neighbours and replies given by the parties and police report and the complaint of present case [be sent] to Forensic Psychiatry Department of NIMHANS and [the Court] direct them to examine the material and give their expert opinion in evidence within stipulated time…”

Thus, the accused sought:

Transmission of historical medical and behavioural records to the forensic psychiatry department of NIMHANS; and
An expert opinion from NIMHANS to be taken on record as evidence.

(b) Application under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

Under this application, the accused prayed:

“…that Hon’ble Court shall be pleased to refer the same for further scrutiny to the concerned Board as stated under the Section 105 of Mental Health Care Act and for the proper diagnosis this Hon’ble may please to send copies of medical records of year 2000 to 2002 and Medical records procured from the jail and all the complaints filed by the accused against the neighbors and replies given by the parties and police reports.”

In essence, he invoked:

Section 105 MHCA, requesting that the alleged proof of mental illness be referred to the “concerned Board” (which, under the Act, normally means the Mental Health Review Board); and
Simultaneously, transmission of relevant medical and behavioural records to facilitate proper psychiatric assessment.

2.5 The Impugned Order and the Writ Petition

The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, by order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure A), dismissed both applications. Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court by:

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (inherent powers of the High Court),

seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court’s order and a direction to allow the two applications.

3. Key Legal Issues

The High Court crystallised the controversy into a single broad question:

“Whether the petitioner has made out a case for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the applications as prayed for?”

This broad question breaks down into three specific legal issues:

Insanity defence and burden of proof:
- What is the effect of the accused admitting the homicidal act but claiming absence of mens rea due to unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC?
- How does Section 105 of the Evidence Act allocate the burden of proving such a general exception?
Scope of expert evidence:
- What is the scope and weight of expert psychiatric evidence under Section 45 Evidence Act?
- When can a court invoke Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon additional expert evidence, and is the trial court obliged to do so upon an accused’s request?
Interpretation of Section 105 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
- Does Section 105 MHCA require that whenever any proof of mental illness is produced and disputed, the court must refer the matter to the Board?
- Or, in the context of a Section 84 IPC plea, must the accused first demonstrate mental illness rising to the level of “unsoundness of mind” before the court’s obligation to refer is triggered?

4. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the trial court’s refusal to:

Order an additional expert psychiatric opinion from NIMHANS under Section 45 Evidence Act read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.; and
Refer the accused to the concerned Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The main findings can be summarised as follows:

Onus under Section 84 IPC and Section 105 Evidence Act: Since the accused admits the killing but pleads unsoundness of mind, the burden lies squarely on him to show that at the time of the offence he was incapable of knowing:
- the nature of the act, or
- that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
Expert evidence under Section 45 Evidence Act is advisory, not binding: The court reiterates that the opinion of experts is not binding and that the trial court will entertain an application under Section 45 only if the expert opinion is deemed necessary for a just decision. Here, given the existing defence evidence (including a psychiatrist and treating doctor), an additional one-time examination by NIMHANS was considered unnecessary and of “no evidentiary value” to determine the accused’s mental state at the time of the offence.
Temporal focus – mental state at time of offence, not present condition: The court emphasises that it is the mental state at the time of the commission of the offence that is relevant under Section 84 IPC, not the present mental condition of the accused in prison or during trial.
Construction of Section 105 MHCA and “mental illness” vs “unsoundness of mind”:
- The definition of “mental illness” in Section 2(1)(s) MHCA is broader than “unsoundness of mind” under Section 84 IPC.
- All persons who are legally “unsound” under Section 84 IPC are mentally ill under Section 2(1)(s) MHCA, but not all “mental illness” amounts to legal “unsoundness of mind”.
- Therefore, where an accused claims the defence of Section 84 IPC and invokes Section 105 MHCA, he must first produce evidence of mental illness sufficient to satisfy the Section 84 IPC standard; only if such proof is given and disputed by the prosecution does the court’s obligation to refer to the Board arise.
No adequate proof of Section 84 IPC unsoundness on record: After examining the defence evidence (particularly DW6, the only psychiatrist) and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court finds that:
- No question was put to DW6 specifically to establish that, at the time of the killings, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law; and
- The evidence and 313 statement fail to satisfy the ingredients of “unsoundness of mind” under Section 84 IPC.
Consequently, Section 105 MHCA is not triggered.
Result:
- The writ petition is dismissed.
- The High Court clarifies that its observations are confined to deciding the writ petition and do not bind the trial court when it ultimately adjudicates the insanity plea on the entire evidence.

5. Detailed Analysis

5.1 Statutory Framework

5.1.1 Section 84 IPC – Act of a person of unsound mind

“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.”

This is the classic insanity defence provision. Two cumulative elements are crucial:

Temporal element: The unsoundness must exist at the time of doing the act; and
Functional element: Because of that unsoundness, the person is:
- incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
- incapable of knowing that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

5.1.2 Section 105 Evidence Act – Burden to prove exceptions

“When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code… is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”

Thus:

The prosecution must prove the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence; but
When the accused invokes a general exception like Section 84, the burden shifts to him to prove the circumstances constituting the exception.
The law creates a presumption that no such exception exists until the accused rebuts it.

5.1.3 Section 45 Evidence Act – Opinion of experts

“When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art… the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled… are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.”

The expert’s opinion is:

Relevant but not decisive;
Advisory in nature; the court is not bound to accept it; and
Subject to the court’s assessment of reliability, consistency with other evidence, and overall probative value.

5.1.4 Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Power to summon material witness

“Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding… summon any person as a witness… or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine… if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

The provision has:

A discretionary limb (“may” summon or recall); and
A mandatory limb (“shall” summon) where the court finds the evidence essential to a just decision.

5.1.5 Section 105 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

“If during any judicial process before any competent court, proof of mental illness is produced and is challenged by the other party, the court shall refer the same for further scrutiny to the concerned Board and Board shall, after examination of the person alleged to have a mental illness either by itself or through a committee of experts, submit its opinion to the court.”

Key elements:

Trigger: “Proof of mental illness” is produced and challenged by the opposite party.
Obligation: The court “shall refer” the matter to the Board for further scrutiny.
Outcome: The Board must examine the person (itself or via a committee of experts) and submit its opinion to the court.

5.1.6 Definition of “mental illness” – Section 2(1)(s) MHCA

"'mental illness' means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation…"

This definition is notably broad and clinical, covering a wide range of psychopathologies, from mood and perceptual disorders to substance-related conditions, so long as they substantially impair judgment, behaviour, or reality-testing.

5.2 Court’s Approach to Section 45 Evidence Act and Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The High Court notes that:

Under settled law, expert opinion is not binding; it is only one piece of evidence among many.
The court will permit additional expert evidence under Section 45, typically via Section 311 Cr.P.C., only if it is necessary for a just decision of the case.

The trial court had already:

Heard eight defence witnesses, including:
- a psychiatrist (DW6) treating the accused in prison,
- a neighbour,
- the treating doctor, and
- medical records.
Observed that the state of mind at the time of the incident, not the current prison mental status, is crucial under Section 84 IPC.
Concluded that a single fresh expert examination (e.g., by NIMHANS) at this stage would have “no evidentiary value” to decide the mental state at the time of the offence.

The High Court endorses this reasoning and finds:

No error in the trial court’s refusal to send the accused for further expert examination under Section 45 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Given the existing evidence, the trial court reasonably considered that it could decide the insanity plea on the basis of:
- behavioural evidence before, during and immediately after the offence,
- testimony of the treating doctor and neighbour, and
- medical records already available.

Implicitly, the High Court:

Respects the discretion vested in the trial court under Section 311; and
Signals that appellate/writ interference in such discretionary decisions will be deferential, absent manifest error or perversity.

5.3 Interpretation of Section 105 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

Section 105 MHCA uses strong mandatory language (“shall refer”) once:

“proof of mental illness” is produced, and
the proof is “challenged by the other party.”

The accused argued that:

He had produced proof of mental illness through defence evidence and medical documents; and
Therefore, the trial court was bound to refer the matter to the concerned Board under Section 105 MHCA and could not refuse his application.

The High Court, however, qualifies and narrows this obligation in the context of a criminal case where:

The specific legal issue is the applicability of Section 84 IPC; and
The accused seeks to rely on Section 105 MHCA to bolster his insanity defence.

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps:

(a) Step One – Distinguishing “mental illness” and “unsoundness of mind”

The Court notes:

The statutory definition of “mental illness” in Section 2(1)(s) MHCA is much broader than “unsoundness of mind” under Section 84 IPC (paras 16–17).
Therefore:
- Every person who is legally “of unsound mind” under Section 84 IPC will necessarily be “mentally ill” under Section 2(1)(s) MHCA; but
- Not every “mental illness” condition amounts to “unsoundness of mind” as contemplated under Section 84 IPC.

In other words:

All Section 84 cases fall within Section 2(1)(s), but
Many Section 2(1)(s) cases will not meet the stricter threshold of Section 84.

(b) Step Two – Threshold for triggering Section 105 MHCA in a Section 84 IPC context

On this conceptual foundation, the Court holds (para 18) that when an accused:

Invokes Section 105 MHCA in a criminal trial, specifically asserting unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC, and
Asks the court to refer him to the Board for further scrutiny,

the accused must first:

Produce proof of mental illness that meets the standard of “unsoundness of mind” under Section 84 IPC, not merely any mental illness within the broader MHCA definition.

Only if:

such proof sufficient to prima facie show Section 84 unsoundness is produced; and
the prosecution challenges it,

does the court come under a mandatory duty under Section 105 MHCA to refer the matter to the concerned Board.

5.4 Application of This Threshold to the Facts

The Court then examines:

The examination-in-chief of DW6 (the psychiatrist);
The other defence evidence; and
The accused’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Its key findings:

DW6 was never specifically asked to opine whether, at the time of the incident, the accused was incapable of:
- knowing the nature of his act of killing, or
- knowing that the act was wrong or contrary to law.
Neither the other witnesses nor the 313 statement of the accused sufficiently establish the ingredients of Section 84 unsoundness.

Consequently, the Court holds (para 20) that:

The accused has failed to produce adequate evidence to prove unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC; and therefore
The condition precedent for invoking Section 105 MHCA – in the specific sense articulated by the Court – is not met.

Thus, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 105 MHCA.

5.5 Precedents and Jurisprudential Context

5.5.1 “Umpteen judgments” on expert opinion

The judgment explicitly refers (para 10) to “umpteen judgments” of the High Court and the Supreme Court holding that:

Expert opinion is not binding on the court; and
Applications for expert opinion under Section 45 Evidence Act are allowed only when the court finds them necessary for a just adjudication.

However, the judgment does not name specific cases. It simply relies on the settled jurisprudential position in a generic way.

This approach is consistent with a longstanding line of authority (though not expressly cited here) which holds that:

Experts assist, but do not supplant, the judicial function;
The court must evaluate expert evidence in light of the entire evidence on record; and
The court retains control over whether and when to seek additional expert input.

5.5.2 Insanity defence and burden of proof – broader jurisprudence

Again, while the present judgment does not reference specific case names, its reasoning about:

the burden of proof under Section 105 Evidence Act, and
the requirement that the accused prove lack of mens rea under Section 84 IPC,

is aligned with established Supreme Court jurisprudence which has consistently held that:

The prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt;
When an accused claims the benefit of a general exception, he must prove it on a preponderance of probabilities (a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt); and
Insanity at the time of trial or prior/ subsequent mental illness is relevant only as circumstantial evidence – the decisive question is insanity at the time of the act.

Although the standard of proof (“preponderance of probabilities”) is not expressly articulated in this judgment, the allocation of burden and emphasis on circumstances before, during and after the act is consistent with that wider line of authority.

5.6 Evaluation of the Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.6.1 On Section 45 Evidence Act / Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The High Court’s deference to the trial court’s discretion is doctrinally sound:

Section 311 is meant to empower, not compel, routine re-opening of evidence on demand; the mandatory duty arises only when the court itself finds further evidence “essential to the just decision”.
Given that:
- A psychiatrist (DW6) and treating doctor were already examined;
- Behavioural and documentary evidence existed;
the trial court could rationally conclude that one more “snapshot” psychiatric opinion from NIMHANS – long after the event – might not significantly enhance its ability to decide the mental state at the time of offence.

The Court also rightly emphasises:

The distinction between medical diagnosis now and legal capacity then;
The centrality of behavioural evidence around the time of offence.

5.6.2 On Section 105 MHCA – A Restrictive Reading

The more novel aspect of the judgment lies in its interpretation of Section 105 MHCA. The Court essentially reads into Section 105 a contextual qualification:

In a criminal trial involving a Section 84 plea, “proof of mental illness” in Section 105 MHCA must be understood as proof that meets the legal standard for “unsoundness of mind” under Section 84 IPC.

Doctrinally, this is a defensible reading because:

The ultimate legal issue is whether the accused should be held criminally responsible under Section 84; and
The Board’s opinion, if sought, must be relevant to that legal question rather than merely establish some clinical disorder that may fall far short of Section 84 unsoundness.

Yet, from a policy and rights perspective, one could argue that:

Section 105 MHCA is a rights-protective provision, intended to ensure that any reasonably substantiated claim of mental illness is subjected to independent expert scrutiny via a Board;
Imposing a requirement that the accused’s evidence must already rise to the Section 84 threshold before triggering Section 105 arguably places a heavy evidentiary burden on the accused at a preliminary stage and may restrict access to the Board;
A more expansive reading could be that the mere production of credible evidence indicating substantial mental illness, even if it does not yet fully demonstrate Section 84 unsoundness, should suffice to trigger Section 105 when disputed.

The High Court’s approach, however, promotes:

Judicial economy – avoiding automatic referrals in every case where some medical evidence of mental illness is adduced; and
Coherence between the civil-rights orientation of MHCA and the criminal responsibility threshold under Section 84 IPC.

5.6.3 Safeguard: Non-binding nature of observations

Notably, the Court ends with a safeguard:

“The observations made herein above are only for the purposes of disposal of this writ petition and the trial Court will not be bound by it and will take a decision based upon the evidence adduced before it, independently of the observations…”

This is important because:

The High Court is not adjudicating the insanity plea on merits but only reviewing interlocutory orders on evidence and reference;
It preserves the trial court’s freedom to:
- Evaluate all the evidence (including cross-examination yet to come);
- Arrive at its own independent conclusion on the Section 84 plea.

5.7 Likely Impact on Future Cases

5.7.1 On insanity defences in Karnataka

This judgment clarifies several practical points for criminal trials involving insanity pleas:

An accused cannot expect that every assertion of mental illness will automatically result in a Board reference under Section 105 MHCA.
Defence counsel must:
- Lead focused psychiatric evidence that speaks explicitly to the Section 84 criteria;
- Ensure that psychiatrists are asked direct questions about the accused’s capacity at the time of the offence to understand the nature and wrongfulness/illegality of the act.
Behavioural evidence before, during, and after the act assumes central significance and cannot be substituted by a later, brief psychiatric evaluation alone.

5.7.2 On use of Section 105 MHCA

In Karnataka, at least, this judgment is likely to be cited for the proposition that:

Section 105 MHCA does not apply merely because some medical proof of a DSM/ICD-style mental disorder is produced;
In the criminal context where Section 84 IPC is at stake, the proof must be such that it can reasonably support a conclusion of legal unsoundness before the duty to refer arises.

This may:

Encourage trial courts to undertake a prima facie assessment of the quality of evidence before directing Board reference;
Lead to more structured psychiatric testimony in insanity cases, attuned to the legal test under Section 84 rather than purely clinical descriptions.

5.7.3 On expert evidence more broadly

The reiteration that expert opinion is neither binding nor always necessary will:

Reinforce trial courts’ autonomy in deciding whether an additional expert is needed;
Discourage tactical or dilatory attempts to obtain repeated expert opinions, especially late in the trial, absent a clear showing that they are essential for a just decision.

6. Complex Concepts Simplified

6.1 Mens rea

Mens rea means the “guilty mind” – the mental element of an offence. For murder, it typically involves:

Intention to cause death, or
Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

If, due to unsoundness of mind, the accused is incapable of forming such intention or knowledge, Section 84 IPC provides a defence.

6.2 Legal insanity vs medical insanity

Medical insanity is a clinical concept, determined by psychiatrists using diagnostic criteria for mental disorders.
Legal insanity under Section 84 IPC is narrower. It is not enough that a person has a mental disorder; what matters is whether, by reason of that disorder at the time of the act, he:
- could not understand the nature of what he was doing, or
- could not understand that it was wrong or contrary to law.

One may be mentally ill (within MHCA) but still legally responsible (no Section 84 defence).

6.3 Burden of proof under Section 105 Evidence Act

When an accused raises an exception like Section 84:

The law presumes that no such exception exists unless the accused proves otherwise.
The accused must produce evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, makes it more likely than not that he fell within the exception.
If the accused succeeds, he may be acquitted; if he fails, the normal criminal liability stands, provided the prosecution proves the basic offence.

6.4 Writ of certiorari and Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a constitutional remedy by which the High Court can quash illegal or flawed orders of subordinate courts or authorities.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. gives the High Court inherent power to make such orders as are necessary to:
- prevent abuse of the process of any court, or
- secure the ends of justice.

However, these are extraordinary remedies; the High Court generally does not interfere with discretionary procedural orders of trial courts unless there is clear illegality or miscarriage of justice.

6.5 Mental Health Review Board (the “Board”)

Under the Mental Healthcare Act, “Board” generally refers to a Mental Health Review Board – an independent statutory body comprising legal and medical members. Its roles include:

Reviewing certain mental health treatment decisions;
Protecting the rights of persons with mental illness; and
Providing expert opinions to courts under provisions like Section 105 MHCA.

7. Conclusion

The decision in Mr. Alphonsa Saldana v. State of Karnataka establishes an important clarification at the intersection of criminal law and mental health law:

An accused who admits the homicidal act but pleads insanity bears a positive burden under Section 105 Evidence Act to prove that, at the time of the offence, he fell within the narrow confines of Section 84 IPC.
Expert psychiatric opinion is a relevant but not controlling tool; courts will not invariably order further expert evaluations, especially when sufficient evidence exists to assess behaviour and mental capacity at the relevant time.
Section 105 MHCA’s mandate to refer “proof of mental illness” to a Board is not an automatic right in criminal cases. Where the accused’s objective is to claim the Section 84 IPC defence, he must first produce evidence that prima facie reaches the level of legal unsoundness. Only then, if the prosecution disputes it, does the mandatory referral duty arise.
The Court also maintains a vital safeguard by expressly stating that its observations are confined to the writ proceedings and that the trial court remains free to independently evaluate the insanity plea on the full record.

Doctrinally, the judgment promotes coherence between the Mental Healthcare Act and the IPC by distinguishing broad clinical mental illness from the narrower legal category of unsoundness of mind. Practically, it signals to defence counsel the need for targeted, legally relevant psychiatric evidence and to trial courts that they must conduct an initial qualitative assessment of such evidence before invoking the machinery of Section 105 MHCA.

In the broader legal landscape, this decision will likely serve as a significant reference point in Karnataka for future cases involving insanity defences and the use of mental health mechanisms under the 2017 Act, balancing individual rights, evidentiary discipline, and judicial economy.