Insanity is a defense used in criminal prosecutions. It is contained in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Insanity simply means a lack of sound mind. The mind of an insane person may be deranged, disordered or has become mad. He may not know the difference between real and unreal things. He may not be able to reach judgments based on judicious calculations. He must be believing in unreal state of things in which rational persons will not usually believe.
Section 84 of IPC absolves any person from culpability if he has done a wrong by reason of his unsound mind. At the time of doing the act, he should be unsound and incapable of judging the nature of the act so as to think whether he is doing right or wrong. The aforesaid rule is based on the McNaughton rule in England. Mc Naughton killed an English civil servant by mistaking him to be another person. He did this act due to his delusion. He pleaded the point of insanity in the trial and the House of Lords delivered the following points:
- Every man is presumed to be sane and possesses a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes.
- Those who plead insanity should have been under the disease of mind by the reason of which they did not know the nature of the act.
- Even if he knew the nature of the act, he did not know whether it is crime or not due to his diseased mind.
Thus it can be seen that the exception of insanity itself is based on the basic principle of criminal law which requires mens rea or criminal mind to penalize a wrongful act. A person cannot be held liable for any criminal act which he commits if he has no real criminal intent to do it. In short, the act must be voluntary and coupled with an intent to cause evil. We could find a plethora of English cases on the above subject.
Types of Insanity
Generally, there is medical and legal insanity. Medical insanity which includes various conditions of the human mind like emotions, fear, hatred, anger, perversions, etc is out of the purview of Section 84 of IPC. In law, only those conditions which impair the cognitive features of the human mind are applicable. This is called legal insanity. A criminal act done with unsoundness of mind falls within legal insanity. In Bapu alias Gujraj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan[1], the Supreme Court held that when considering whether there is unsoundness of mind the standard to be applied is whether the act was right or wrong according to the ordinary standard adopted by reasonable men. The motive of the offender also plays an important role in considering the defense of insanity.
Generally, there is medical and legal insanity. Medical insanity which includes various conditions of the human mind like emotions, fear, hatred, anger, perversions, etc is out of the purview of Section 84 of IPC. In law, only those conditions which impair the cognitive features of the human mind are applicable. This is called legal insanity. A criminal act done with unsoundness of mind falls within legal insanity. In Bapu alias Gujraj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan[1], the Supreme Court held that when considering whether there is unsoundness of mind the standard to be applied is whether the act was right or wrong according to the ordinary standard adopted by reasonable men. The motive of the offender also plays an important role in considering the defense of insanity.
Evidence of insanity
In Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand[2], the Supreme Court held that the accused must prove that he was legally insane at the time of the commission of an offense. The unsoundness of mind should exist at the time of the commission of the criminal act alleged. Merely because of the fact that the accused got several medical treatments for his delusive acts in the past, he will not be absolved from criminal liability unless it can be proved that at the time of the commission of the offense he was insane or unsound.
In Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[3], it was held by the Supreme Court that the mental state of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense coupled with the evidence of conduct preceded will be considered to consider the element of insanity. The conduct of the accused with reference to his medical condition by the production of medical evidence and other relevant factors has to be considered for reaching a conclusion as to the plea of insanity[2].
Illustration: A had killed B and soon after the act, he threatened an eye witness C of the dire consequences and ran away from the place. He then threw away the weapon which was discovered later. All these acts will show that A, the accused had knowledge of the nature and consequences of his act. These things will damage any chances of his acquittal by pleading insanity.
Onus Probandi
In Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand[2], the Supreme Court held that the accused must prove that he was legally insane at the time of the commission of an offense. The unsoundness of mind should exist at the time of the commission of the criminal act alleged. Merely because of the fact that the accused got several medical treatments for his delusive acts in the past, he will not be absolved from criminal liability unless it can be proved that at the time of the commission of the offense he was insane or unsound.
In Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[3], it was held by the Supreme Court that the mental state of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense coupled with the evidence of conduct preceded will be considered to consider the element of insanity. The conduct of the accused with reference to his medical condition by the production of medical evidence and other relevant factors has to be considered for reaching a conclusion as to the plea of insanity[2].
Illustration: A had killed B and soon after the act, he threatened an eye witness C of the dire consequences and ran away from the place. He then threw away the weapon which was discovered later. All these acts will show that A, the accused had knowledge of the nature and consequences of his act. These things will damage any chances of his acquittal by pleading insanity.
Onus Probandi
The burden of proof is upon the accused to prove this exception of insanity as per Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as “IEA”). When Section 105 above is read with Section 4 of the IEA, the accused is presumed to be sane at the time of the commission of the offense until the contrary is proved. In Smt.Parmo vs. State of UP decided by Allahabad High Court[4], it was held by the Court that to give the benefit of the above exception in IPC, the Court has to consider the circumstances as that preceded, attended or followed the criminal act alleged to be committed. However, unlike the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ principle, the accused can prove his defense on a preponderance of probability. He must only create a reasonable doubt in the minds of judges in order to gain an acquittal.
In Dahyabhai Chhanganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat[5], the scope of this exception was dealt with in detail. It was held that:
In Dahyabhai Chhanganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat[5], the scope of this exception was dealt with in detail. It was held that:
- The burden of proving the criminal case in a criminal trial rests upon the prosecution from beginning to end.
- The presumption that the accused was not insane while doing the act is a rebuttable one. In such a case, the burden of proving the case of insanity is similar to one in a civil trial.
- Even if the accused fails to prove that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense, the evidence put forward by the accused or the prosecution may raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the court regarding mens rea and other such ingredients and the Court can acquit the accused stating that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the case.
Footnotes
1) 2007 8 SCC 66
2) 2011 (1) SCC 495
3) 1970 (3) SCC 533
4) Criminal Appeal No:1368 of 2015
5) 2 AIR 1964 SC 1563
Disclaimer: The content of this post is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To know our detailed Disclaimer, go to this link.
1) 2007 8 SCC 66
2) 2011 (1) SCC 495
3) 1970 (3) SCC 533
4) Criminal Appeal No:1368 of 2015
5) 2 AIR 1964 SC 1563
Disclaimer: The content of this post is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To know our detailed Disclaimer, go to this link.
To submit scholarly articles on law or law notes visit this link.
Subscribe to our official Telegram Channel here: http://t.me/senseoflaw .
Join our official whatsapp Group here:https://chat.whatsapp.com/JCOuJ3pmROx6f1BNNQfGfB