Mental illnesses are not essential nor sufficient reasons of violent behaviour. Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic position continue to be key drivers of violence.
Second, people of the general public probably overstate both the intensity of the link between serious mental diseases and violence, as well as their own personal danger of being victimised by the severely mentally ill. People suffering from a significant mental condition are considerably more likely to be victims of violence.
Third, whether or not it happens in the setting of a concomitant mental illness, drug addiction appears to be a primary factor of violence. Substance abusers are important contributors to community violence, accounting for up to a third of self-reported violent actions and seven out of every ten violent crimes committed by mentally ill people.
Finally, much too much previous study has focused on the mental illness sufferer rather than the nature of the social interactions that led to the violence. As a result, we know far less than we should about the nature of these interactions and the contextual factors that influence violence, as well as far less than we should regarding basic preventive options. Nonetheless, current research suggests that early detection and treatment of drug addiction issues, as well as a greater focus on the diagnosis and management of concurrent substance abuse disorders among the profoundly mentally ill, might be effective violence-prevention techniques.
In Nagpur, Schizophrenia came to the rescue of an accused who was acquitted by the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court for murdering his brother and injuring another. On November 15, 2017, a division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Pushpa Ganediwala vacated the sentence imposed on petitioner Rajendra Chowdhury by the Chandrapur Sessions Court, expanding the scope of Section 84 of the IPC to such crimes done by an uneducated person. The 51-year-old man has been sentenced to life in prison for the brutal murder and has been in jail ever since.
No offense is committed by a person who, while committing an act of mental illness, is unable to know the nature of the act, or is acting improperly or unlawfully, Section 84 is read. The prosecutor failed to explain why the applicant acted in this way when there was no record of violence or animosity between the brothers. Conflict, omissions, and the development of the material of the dispute are properly substantiated after the investigating officer has experienced the same. Therefore, having regard to all these factors, we think that he is entitled to benefit of the doubt and consequent acquittal, the bench said.
On April 19, 2014, Chaudhary beat his two brothers with an ax while they were sleeping on the plains with their families at night. While one of them died from a head injury, the other suffered serious injuries but survived. Thereafter, Chaudhary inflicted injuries on himself with the same weapon and surrendered before the Virur police station in Rajura, Chandrapur, on the same night. Thereafter, an extra-time judge convicted him under Article 302. Chaudhary challenged the decision in HC where he was offered a lawyer RD Hajare under the jurisdictional jury as he came from a poor background and could not afford a lawyer.
Arguing that it was a legitimate case where the applicant was entitled to protection under Section 84, Hajare said there was ample evidence to show that Chaudhary due to mental incapacity could not determine the nature of his action at the time he acted. The evidence establishes the history of the petitioner’s mental illness and the absence of motive and secrecy. He murdered two brothers who were close relatives of his, and the judges ruled that while this was a case of multiple murders, there was no proof that he planned or had any collaborators.
Adding that the evidence on record was more than sufficient for discharge of onus on the petitioner, they said it was for the prosecution to lead further evidence in rebuttal. Based on a thorough analysis of the evidence led by both prosecutors and the defense, we are satisfied that this is at least a case in which the recorded content creates reasonable doubts about the applicant’s attitude at the time of the incident, the bench said.
The courts ordered the police to finish the procedure under sections 338 and 339 of the CRPC, which require them to guarantee that the accused does not hurt himself or others after being released from prison or committed to an asylum.
