The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant verdict in the brutal 2020 Mangaluru couple murder case, firmly rejecting the accused's insanity defence. Alphonse Saldanha, who allegedly stabbed to death Vincent and Helen d'Souza at Yelinje village in Mangaluru taluk, saw his petition dismissed by the court.
Court's Firm Stance on Insanity Defence
Justice M I Arun, presiding over the case, passed the crucial order on November 3, 2025. The bench set aside Saldanha's claim of insanity as a valid defence for the gruesome murder that shocked the Mangaluru community. The court emphasized that not every mental illness qualifies as "unsoundness of mind" under the legal framework.
During the trial court proceedings, Saldanha's legal team had vigorously pursued the insanity defence, examining eight witnesses including a psychiatrist who had treated him during his time in prison. The defence strategy relied heavily on establishing his mental state at the time of the crime.
Failed Legal Maneuvers and Medical Evidence
The accused had filed two significant applications before the trial court. The first application sought to have his medical records sent to the Forensic Psychiatry Department at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bengaluru under the Evidence Act. The second application, filed under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, requested that his records be placed before a Medical Board for proper examination.
Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act specifically states that when proof of mental illness is produced and challenged, the case must be referred to a Medical Board. This board would then either examine the allegedly mentally ill person directly or submit an expert committee opinion.
High Court's Detailed Reasoning
When both applications were dismissed by the trial court, Saldanha approached the High Court seeking relief. His legal team argued that since his case should have been referred to a medical board as per statutory requirements, the trial court erred in dismissing his applications.
However, the Karnataka High Court bench provided clear legal interpretation, stating: "It has to be examined whether the evidence adduced by him is sufficient to prove 'unsoundness of mind'." The court elaborated that the mere presence of mental illness under the Mental Healthcare Act doesn't automatically equate to the legal standard of unsound mind required for such defences.
In its detailed assessment, the bench noted crucial gaps in the evidence presented. "Nowhere... a question is put to him (psychiatrist) to speak about the unsound mind of the petitioner sufficient to establish his incapacity of knowing the nature of his act of killing the deceased or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to the law," the court observed.
The judgment further clarified that evidence from other witnesses also failed to satisfy the legal requirements for establishing unsoundness of mind. This comprehensive rejection of the insanity defence paves the way for the trial to proceed on substantive evidence related to the murder itself.
