Insanity as a Defence

7/31/2019 Insanity as a Defence

1/3

INSANITY AS A DEFENCE

A crime is a voluntarily act which is an outcome of an intent to cause an evil consequence1.

There are certain essentials of crime. The actor must possess the following conditions2:

(1) free will;

(2) intelligence to distinguish between good and evil;

(3) knowledge of facts upon which the good and evil of an act may depend; and

(4) knowledge that the act is prohibited by law.

Section 84 Indian Penal Code Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence

which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is

incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contraryto law.

The fundamental principle is that mens rea (guilty mind) is an essential element in every

offence and no crime can be said to have been committed if the mind of the person doing the act

is not guilty.3

So a person incapable of entertaining such intent cannot incur legal guilt.4

In order to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 84, three elements are necessary any one

of which must have to be established by the accused, viz., that the accused, because of

unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or secondly, the act was

contrary to law or thirdly, the act was wrong.5

Where a man is totally deprived of hisunderstanding and memory and does not know what he is doing, he will properly be exempted

from the punishment of the law.6

Analogous LawChapter XXV (sections 328-339) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

deals with procedure to be followed where the accused is a lunatic or of unsound mind.

Common disorders found in prison inmates

Schizophrenia

1 B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, 2nd ed. 2006, p. 125.

2Huda: The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India, 1982, p. 217.

3 Bishops Criminal Law, section 375.

4Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes, 26

thEd. Bharat Law House, 2007, New Delhi, p. 304.

5 V.B. Raju, Commentaries on Indian Penal Code, Vol 1, 3 rd Ed. Eastern Book Company, 1965, Lucknow, p.

257.

6 Ibid, p. 257.


2/3

Delusions, hallucinations, paranoid behavior, angry outburst, lack of emotion.

Bipolar Disorders

Emotional highs (mania), crippling lows (depression), impulsive behaviour, severe psychosis

episodes that cause delusions and hallucinations.

Depression

Feeling down, suicidal thoughts, loss of interest in everyday activities, feelings of impending

doom

It has been the policy of the law to give immunity from criminal responsibility to insane

persons as their actions are not governed by their will.7

It is only insanity of a particular kind

that gives exemption from responsibility; thus a man who becomes insane after committing a

crime cannot be tried until his mind becomes sound and similarly an insane person cannot be

hanged.

8

Criminal law divides insane persons into two classes: a) those over whom the threatsand prohibitions of criminal law would prove futile and b) those whose form of insanity is only

such that they would not have yielded to their insanity if a policeman had been at their

elbows.9

There are various tests to determine if a persons insanity can be used as a defence. Examples

are the Wild Beast test, the Good and Evil test, the Delusion test, Right and Wrong test. The

most famous test is the MacNaughten test, made famous in the case one MacNaughten who

killed Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir Peel in mistake of that statesman, in 1843.

The Court held him not guilty on ground of insanity. On account of severe public

dissatisfaction, the Lords submitted certain questions respecting the insane person.10

The Indian law is substantially the same as that laid down by MacN aughtens rules.11

The

advantage of using the words unsoundness of mind is that it covers mental defects of all kinds

known to medical sciences, and does not require the necessity of defining insanity.12

The following cases can be considered here.

Naubat v State13

Where a plea for insanity is set up, the burden of proof lies on the defence to show that theaccused at the time of committing the offence was, by reason of unsoundness of mind,

incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or

contrary to law. All other forms of insanity and all other minor aberration of mind which are

7 B.S. Sinha, Principles of Criminal Law, 1st Ed. Eastern Book Company, 1962, Lucknow, p. 138.8 Ibid, p. 138.9 Ibid, p. 138.10 Ibid, p. 142.11 Ibid, p. 149.

12 Ibid, p. 150.13 AIR 1955 N.U.C. 856 (Vol. 42).


3/3

recognised by medical science as amounting to madness are excluded in the eyes of the law.14

Ujagar Singh v State15

The accused was not only insane but was violent too, and for that reason, he was kept in chains,

and that on that fateful day he somehow got himself released and speared his own unclewithout any motive and did not even try to run away thereafter. It was held that the accused

committed the offence without realising the nature of his act.

Narain Sahi v Emperor16

In this case evidence was found to rebut the inference of insanity. Moreover, the doctor found

nothing which could lead him to suppose that the accused was of unsound mind.

Pancha v Emperor17

In this case the conduct of the accused in selecting an opportune time for the attack, his aiming

all the blows at the head of the victim and his running away as soon as an alarm was raised

indicated deliberation and his knowledge that what he had done was wrong.

Jalla v Emperor18

In this case the accuseds running away from the field where his wife was done to death and on

going to the village reproaching his aunt for rendering assistance in the elopement of his wife

and attacking her afforded strong indication of the existence or consciousness in his mind that

he had done wrong. There was no evidence of previous insanity, and hence section 84 was notheld applicable.

Onkar Dutta Nigam v Emperor19

It was held that the accused was suffering from the disease called Hebephremia and that he was

suffering from unsoundness of mind to such an extent as to make him incapable of knowing the

nature and the character of his act, which he had committed, and which made him incapable of

understanding that his act was against the law.

14Ibid, p. 150.

15AIR 1954 PEPSU 4.

16 AIR 1947 Pat. 222.

17 AIR 1932 All. 233.

18 AIR 1931 Lah. 278.19 AIR 1935 Oudh.

Documents

Insanity as a Defence