INSANITY AS A DEFENCE A crime is a voluntarily act which is an outcome of an intent to cause an evil consequence 1.

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 contrary to 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 his understanding and memory and does not know what he is doing, he will properly be exempted from the punishment of the law.6 Analogous Law Chapter 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. Huda: The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India, 1982, p. 217. Bishops Criminal Law, section 375. Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes, 26th Ed. Bharat Law House, 2007, New Delhi, p. 304.

V.B. Raju, Commentaries on Indian Penal Code, Vol 1, 3rd Ed. Eastern Book Company, 1965, Lucknow, p. 257.
6

Ibid, p. 257.

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 threats and 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 MacNaughtens 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 the accused 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 8

B.S. Sinha, Principles of Criminal Law, 1st Ed. Eastern Book Company, 1962, Lucknow, p. 138. 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).

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 uncle without 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 not held 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.

14 15 16 17 18 19

Ibid, p. 150. AIR 1954 PEPSU 4. AIR 1947 Pat. 222. AIR 1932 All. 233. AIR 1931 Lah. 278. AIR 1935 Oudh.