Insanity

Sec 84- IPC

Dr Nandini CP
Criminal Law I
 Sec 84
It embodies two different mental
conditions to claim exemption from
criminal liability :
The accused was incapable of knowing the nature of t
 What will be considered?
The first talks about the involuntary
actions and mistake of fact
The second says about those situations
where a man by reason of delusion is
unable to appreciate b/w right and wrong
Non - compos mentis
Lucid intervals
Delirium tremens
Alcohol leading to unsoundness
 Concept
Insanity found as a possible defence
as early as 1313- even when
absolute liability was prevailing
Two ways... where accused persons
sanity may be relevant to study
Accused claims
insanity as a Claims insanity as a
defence , when he defence at the time of
committed the trial---
crime--- This category is more
This is a matter of of procedural in nature
substantive law
 Windle, R v (1952) CA
R vCodere 1916
Insanity - doing wrong means legally, not morally wrong
D killed his insane wife who was always threatening suicide. He killed
her with 100 aspirin. He said I suppose they will hang me for this?
indicating he knew it was legally wrong, whereas he thought it was
morally right.

Held: Knowledge that an act is wrong means legally not morally

wrong. Killing terminally ill spouse may be morally justified but is
criminal offence. Claimed he had communicative insanity (folie a deux).

Guilty (sentence of death upheld)

Comment: Diminished responsibility could now be argued in such
cases.
The ratio in Windle has been doubted in R v Dean Johnson (2007)
EWCA Crim 1978. The High Court of Australia in R v Stapleton
(1952) 86 CLR 358 refused to follow Windle.
 Automatism

An involuntary act such as sleepwalking that is performed in a state of

unconsciousness.
Sane and insane automatism
Internal and external factor

The subject does not act voluntarily and is not fully aware of his or her
actions while in a state of automatism. Automatism has been used as a
defense to show that a defendant lacked the requisite mental state for the
commission of a crime.

...automatism asserts that there was no act in the legal sense because at the
time of the alleged crime, the defendant had no psychic awareness or
volition. Some American jurisdictions have recognized automatism as a
complete, Affirmative Defense to most criminal charges.

An Insanity Defense, by comparison, asserts that the accused possessed

psychic awareness or volition, but at the time of the offense, the accused
possessed a mental disorder or defect that caused them to commit the
offense or prevented them from understanding the wrongness of the offense
 Defence of Automatism
In R v Burgess (1991) 2 WLR 1206 the Court of
Appeal ruled that the defendant who wounded a
woman by hitting her with a video recorder while
sleepwalking, was insane under the M'Naghten Rules.

Lord Lane said, "We accept that sleep is a normal

condition, but the evidence in the instant case
indicates that sleepwalking, and particularly violence
in sleep, is not normal.

After Homicide Act, 1957 Can claimed Diminished

Responsibility
 How does it survive?
The defence largely acts as a restrictions
on what might otherwise be a complete
defence based on lack of mens rea or
automatism
In such cases the special verdict would
be Not Guilty by reason of insanity
The Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883..
procedure .. Criminal Procedure
( Insanity) Act 1964 ... Substituted by
the Cr Pro ( Insanity and Unfitness to
Plead ) Act, 1991.
 Procedure and verdict
The Secretary of state , the accused was
to be treated ... And subject to Mental
Health Act, 1983 ( In India Mental Health,
1987)
Based on the above laws the orders that
can be passed are:
Admission to Hospital
Guardianship Order
Supervision and Treatment order
Absolute Discharge
 R. V. Mc Naughten. ( 1843)
Daniel M .. Charged of Murder of Edward
Drummond ( Secretary to PM Sir Robert Peel)
by shooting him in his back.. While walking
The accused suffering from insane delusion
that Sir Robert Peel had injured him/would be
persecuted
Pleaded not guilty due to insanity
Jury returned the verdict..... Not Guilty on
ground of insanity
Led to debate in parliament and the House of
Lords were asked to clarify the law
 About the Defence
Presumption of sanity and burden
of proof: Sanity is a rebuttable
presumption and the burden of proof
is on the party denying it; the
standard of proof is on a balance of
probabilities, that is to say that mental
incapacity is more likely than not.

Disease of the mind

 Defence
Nature and quality of the act:

This phrase refers to the physical nature and quality of the act,
rather than the moral quality. It covers the situation where the
defendant does not know what he is physically doing.

Two common examples used are:

The defendant cuts a woman's throat under the delusion that

he is cutting a loaf of bread,

The defendant chops off a sleeping man's head because he

has the deluded idea that it would be great fun to see the man
looking for it when he wakes up.

Knowledge that the act was wrong

Range of conditions treated in law
as a disease of the mind
Facts
 D an elderly man suffered with arteriosclerosis caused Kemp, R v (1957) Devlin J
unconsciousness,
attacked wife with hammer during the night.
Held: Hardening of the arteries may cause damage to the brain cells which
may be a "disease of the mind" but the physical state of brain irrelevant, it is
whether the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding are
impaired or absent; in this case it was the flow of blood that affected the
mind, not destruction of brain cells.

D was unaware of his actions during a 'blackout' caused by a disease of the

body that affected the mind.

Devlin J "That may be a matter of importance medically, but it is of no

importance to the law, which merely has to consider the state of mind in
which the accused is, not how he got there. ...mind in the MNaghten
Rules is used in the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reason,
memory and understanding....

Per curium: The condition of the brain, whether the defect of reason is
transient or permanent or whether it is curable, is irrelevant.

Guilty but insane (the old special verdict)

 Bailey V. R 1983
Insanity - automatism - self-induced - available
for specific or basic intent in some circumstances
D
seriously injured his ex-girlfriends new partner with an iron bar. He
said that he assaulted the partner to teach him a lesson for
associating with the girl

D, a diabetic took insulin and drank some sugared water but he had
nothing to eat. D claimed he acted in a state of automatism caused by
hypoglycaemia. He did not complicate the issue with alcohol or
drugs.

Held: Automatism, even if self-induced could provide a defence to a

crime of basic intent crime (unless caused by intoxication).

What must be considered is whether D, in view of his knowledge of

the likely results of his actions, was sufficiently reckless. It was not
necessarily reckless to fail to take food after a dose of insulin.

Guilty although non-insane (self-induced) automatism, no

injustice at trial.
 Hennessy, R v (1989)
CA
Insanity - distinguishing between insanity and
automatism - internal factors caused by external
influences are insanity

Facts- D, a diabetic, took a car without consent and drove

whilst disqualified. Had not taken insulin because of stress
anxiety and depression.

Held: Not taking insulin - leading to hyperglycaemia is

insanity. And it is insanity either alone or together with the
stress anxiety and depression. It is not automatism.

Stress and anxiety are neither unique nor accidental factors

but constituted a state of mind which was prone to recur.
D was not suffering from automatism.

Guilty
 Quick (1973) CA
Insanity - automatism - an external factor is required

D, a nurse, assaulted a patient. He was a diabetic, had taken insulin and not
eaten sufficient food. He drank whisky and rum he could not remember the
assault. He pleaded automatism.

Held: D was suffering from automatism, which is a mental abnormality

caused by an external factor. He was not suffering from insanity caused by
hypoglycaemia (low sugar in the blood) by taking insulin prescribed by his
doctor. [Distinguished from hyperglycaemia high blood sugar occurring
naturally, which would be insanity]

Lawton LJ: 'a self-induced incapacity will not excuse ... nor will one which
could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing or
omitting to do something, for example, taking alcohol against medical
advice after using certain prescribed drugs or failing to have regular meals
while taking insulin.

Not guilty
 Sullivan V R 1983
Insanity - epilepsy is insanity, not automatism
D kicked an 86 yr old neighbour for whom he customarily did acts of
kindness - in the head and body while having epileptic fit.

Held: Epilepsy is insanity, (not automatism) it affects the mind, not an

external cause such as drugs or alcohol.

A defence of non-insane automatism, for which the proper verdict would be

a verdict of not guilty, might be available in cases where temporary
impairment of the mental faculties, not being self-induced by drink or drugs,
results from some external factor such as a blow to the head causing
concussion.

Guilty
Comment: On his conviction, a probation order, with medical supervision,
represented an altogether more advantageous outcome than the order
which the court would have been obliged to make if the defence of insanity
had been established
 List of Cases in India
Lakshmi
Lakshmi V
V State
State 1963
1963
Murder of step brother- A drug
addict
The step brother opposed the life
style
Later the victim was attacked with
( Pharasa) .. When he raised
alarm.. He ran away.. After 2 hrs
the victim died.. Accuse d
surrendered after two days?
Whether the defence of insanity
applies ?
There was motive.. But there was
evidence of short intervals of
recurring fits insanity ..
The word incapable was
interpreted.. Difference of Legal
and Medical Insanity---
Appeal Dismissed
Dayabhai
Dayabhai Chhaganbahi
Chhaganbahi Thannkar
Thannkar V
V Guj
Guj
(( 1964)
1964)
Wife killed by husband .. Did not take
her to her workplace
Did not like her and wanted his FIL to
take her away
When the FIL did not take her on the
promised day ....The victim was killed
Proof of insanity not sufficient to
convince the court about insanity
The Appeal dismissed
Sheralli Wali Mohd V St of Mahratra
( 1972)
Killed his wife and female child..
Though the accused brothers pleaded
insanity .... It could not be inferred from
the way the act was committed
The appeal was dismissed
 Irresistible Impulse test
Irresistible impulse is used to exclude from criminal
culpability those individuals knowing the difference
between right and wrong but who are none the less
driven to commit a crime by an irresistible impulse
resulting from a mental condition. In other words, a
person may understand what they are doing is
wrong, but they are unable to conform their
behavior to what is considered to be right or
correct based upon a deficit in will or volition.

Thus, the MNaghten rule is concerned with

cognitive abilities whereas irresistible impulse as a
test of insanity is not the sole test utilized; other
tests are also used.
 Other landmark cases
Ashriruddin Ahmad v The King 1949
Q E v. lakshman Dagdu 1886
Delusions of infideliety Modh Husain V Emp
1913 ( found with her in an illicit liaison father in
law
Delusion s over religious belief Q V Bishendraree
Kahr ( mahadev)
In re NarayanaSwamy Gundan 1931 ( to
mariamma temple)
Geron Ali V Emp- 1941- cut the head of two
person .. One of his own daugther on the first
Ramzan Day)
 Other reasons from
insanity
Somnambulism
Puerperal insanity- child birth
Homicidal mania
Hallucinations Insane delusions
Smoking drugs and drinking alcohol
( inebriety mere insanity not a
defence)
Epileptic
Schizophrenia- split personality