IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST

Lorena Bobbitt case (1994)- Lorena was suffering from "post traumatic shock" and
was actually re-living previous rapes or other brutalities by her husband when she
yielded irresistible impulse to strike back. While her husband was asleep, she cut
his penis. The act of cutting off a man's penis is certainly a gruesome one, but its
gruesome nature actually helps rather than hurts Lorena's defense. The more
gruesome an act, the more "insane" it looks to a jury.
In testimony, Mrs. Bobbitt said she had not realized what she had done until later,
when she ran away from home and was in her car. She said she then discovered the
knife in one hand and her husband's penis in the other.
In this case, she was held not guilty because of irresistible impulse test as it was
believed that she lost her power to control her actions.
Proving Irresistible Impulse
In jurisdictions that use or incorporate the Irresistible Impulse Test as a criminal
defense, defendants typically must present sufficient evidence to prove:
1. The existence of mental illness; and
2. That the mental illness caused the inability to control one's actions or
conform one's conduct to the law.

Balagopal vs. State- The accused was living amicably with his wife. He killed his
wife and child by stabbing them with a knife. There was no motive. It came to
conclusion from medical opinion that accused was suffering from schizophrenic
paranoid type and he would not have been in a position to understand whether a
particular act committed by him was wrong or contrary to law. So defense on plea
of unsoundness of mind was upheld.

Phulabai vs. State of Maharashtra- The accused was suffering from chronic and
incurable illness. She jumped into the well along with her son. The medical
evidence negated medical insanity. In the present case, court has no evidence as to
how exactly the accused and her son fell into the well. From the mere fact that they
were discovered next morning, it may be possible to hold that she attempted to
commit suicide by jumping along with her child, but it is also possible that she was
in such unsound state of mind that she did not know what she was doing when she
jumped into the well along with her child. It would be wrong to play on the
imagination and hold the accused guilty and exclude the operation of Section 84 of
the Indian Penal Code. The absence of medical evidence does not justify exclusion
of common sense.

Model Penal Code Test

Under this test, an individual is not liable for criminal offenses if, when he or she
committed the crime or crimes, the individual suffered from a mental disease or
defect that resulted in the individual lacking the substantial capacity to appreciate
the wrongfulness of his or her actions or to conform his or her actions to
requirements under the law.

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act, 1991

Under this, defense is based on testimony of mental health professional. The

testimony guides the jury but it is the jury that has to decide whether a person is to
be given defense or not.

Durham Test

According to this, the criminal defendant is not criminally responsible if his

unlawful act was product of mental defect or disease.