Chandra and Another vs Attorney General – sllr 2012 volume 1 page 119

In the case between Chandara and Another (appellants) and the Attorney General (respondent), the court addressed whether, under Section 296 of the Penal Code, a plea of insanity could be successfully relied upon at appeal when not raised during trial. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish insanity at the time of the offence and affirmed that the burden of proof for such a plea rests on the accused on a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. This position reaffirmed the principle that the defence of insanity must be clearly proven by the accused, referencing Section 105 of the Evidence Ordinance and common law precedents, including M’Naughton’s rule. The appellate outcome emphasized that the conviction and death sentence should stand as the trial proce