Supreme Court defines who’s an idiot

[sidmis]

Supreme Court defines who’s an idiot
as reported by Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: ‘Idiot’ is a grossly misused word and an oversimplified epithet, if one goes by the Supreme Court’s brand new definition of the term. It is almost impossible for a person to qualify as an idiot, says the Court and therefore, few can expect to get a reprieve for an offence.

To be legally accepted as an ‘idiot’, one has to be so dumb as to be unable to count till 20, list the days of the week, or fail to remember the names of one’s parents, the Court said on Friday.

Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a person is not liable to be prosecuted if they are of unsound mind, or incapable of comprehending the nature of the criminal act and the fact that it is against the law.

The Supreme Court identified just four kinds of people who could be classified mentally unsound — idiots, the very ill, lunatics and drunks.

‘‘An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals: and those are said to be idiots who cannot count 20, or tell the days of the week or who do not know their fathers or mothers or the like,’’ said the judgement by Justices Arijit Pasayat and M K Sharma. They added that it was for the accused to prove they were idiots or otherwise of unsound mind.

The court was dealing with a case from Madhya Pradesh where Hari Singh Gond murdered his grandfather-in-law and then claimed innocence on the grounds of idiocy. The Bench affirmed the lower court orders convicting Gond for the murder. SC: Abnormality or delusion no protection under Section 84

New Delhi: The SC has identified just four kinds of people who could be classified mentally unsound — idiots, the very ill, lunatics and drunks. Idiots, according to the court, are those who are unable to count till 20, list the days of the week, or fail to remember the names of one’s parents. But the trial court did not agree and the SC was forced to define the limits of idiocy. The court was dealing with a case from MP where Hari Singh Gond murdered his grandfather-in-law and then claimed innocence on the grounds of idiocy.

If the investigating agency came across a history of insanity, it was duty-bound to subject the accused to a medical examination, the judges said. If a medical examination is not done ‘‘the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused’’, the judges said.

The MP trial court had refused to accept the accused was mentally unsound even though eyewitnesses reported he behaved in an unusual fashion at the time. Friday’s judgement differentiated between a defendant of unsound mind and mere absence of motive. ‘‘Mere absence of motive for a crime cannot, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within Section 84,’’ it said. ‘‘Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84,’’ the SC added, affirming the earlier court orders convicting Gond for the murder.

Article Window