Nanthancode case sheds light on family dynamics and mental health

The Nanthancode case has brought renewed attention to the complex dynamics of dysfunctional families and the society’s role in preventing such crimes.

The Nanthancode case has brought renewed attention to the complex dynamics of dysfunctional families and the society’s role in preventing such crimes. The case also throws a sharp light on the prevalent misconceptions surrounding mental illness within the context of criminal justice.

While the convict, Cadell Jeansen Raja, initially attempted to explain his horrific actions by claiming experimentation with ‘astral projection’, a spiritual belief in the separation of consciousness from the body, the investigators swiftly debunked this as a deliberate attempt to mislead the probe.

Ultimately, the investigative team concluded that deep-seated resentment and loneliness fuelled Cadell’s rage. He harboured frustration stemming from feeling like an underachiever within his family.

Special Public Prosecutor Dileep Sathyan shed light on the family’s detached lifestyle. “The family led a socially reclusive lifestyle and lacked bonding among themselves,” he says. Revealing the extent of their isolation, he added that the family members often communicated via mobile phone chats even within the confines of their home, even for mundane matters like having meals.

“Cadell was also driven by intense hatred for his father, whose excessive alcoholism after retirement led him to vent his frustration on his son,” the advocate said.

Noted psychiatrist and the Head of the Department of Psychiatry in Government Medical College, Kollam, G. Mohan Roy, who had evaluated Cadell’s mental health at various stages of the investigation, believes the verdict will provide crucial clarity to the ongoing debate surrounding mental health and its legal implications in criminal cases.

Referring to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (or Section 22 of Bharatiya Nyana Sanhita), which pertains to the defence of insanity, Dr Roy clarifies that legal immunity applies only if the individual, at the time of the crime, was incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong due to an unsound mind.