Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code >Defense of Insanity (S. 84 IPC)
When a person proved with the commission of an offence, and ought to have been punished by law, if he is exempted from such legal punishment under special conditions stipulated in the law, it is known as General Exception. Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the “General Exceptions” which a person, accused of an offence under the code or any special or local law can plead. This chapter exempts certain acts from criminal liability. The principles enunciated in Chapter 4 are in fact rules of evidence carrying either conclusive or rebuttable presumptions. They deal with the circumstances which preclude the existence of ‘Mens rea’. They are the principles “Condition of non imputability” or “condition of exemptions from criminal liability”. If the existence of facts, or circumstances bringing the case within any of the exemptions is proved, negatives the existence of ‘Mens rea’ necessary to constitute the offence and thereby furnishes a ground for exemption from criminal liability. In this article we shall discuss the law of insanity or defense of insanity.
A person may lack sufficient mental capacity to form a criminal intent because immaturity of age or because of some defect of the mental faculty. When such defect is caused by some disease of mind, a person is said to be insane. Therefore, those who are under a natural disability of distinguishing between good & evil, as infants under the age of discretion, idiots, and lunatics, are not punishable by criminal prosecution whatsoever. A person with unsound mind is not capable of forming mens rea that is criminal intent. Section 84 of IPC describes the defences available to the person of an unsound mind.
The Latin maxim ‘Furiosus furore suo puniter’, which means that “A mad man is punished by his madness alone”. This maxim emphasizes that when a person suffering from mental defect commits a forbidden act, there is no need to punish him further through the penal mechanism when his mental defect is a punishment in itself. The second maxim ‘Furiosus nulla voluntas est’ which means that “A mad man has no will”. it stresses the obvious point that a man not in control of his senses cannot be said to have a conscious and deliberate will of his own. The third maxim ‘Furiosus absentis loco est’ which means that “A mad man is like one who is absent”. This maxim is perhaps the most categorical recognition of the plight of a man suffering from insanity wherein he is equated with a man who is absent and thus can never be held criminally liable.
In M’ Naughten Case, where Daniel M Naughten suffered from a delusion and killed Edward Drummod (Secetary of PM). The accused was suffering from an insane delusion that Robert peel had injured him and believing Mr. Drummod to be Sir Robert peel he shot and killed him. The Medical evidence also showed that he infact was delusional which carried him away from self control over his acts. He was acquitted which attracted criticism by public.
The M’ Naughten Rules can be summarised in the form of the following five propositions;
- Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and as capable of possessing the mental capacity so as to be responsible for his criminal conduct. If the contrary is being claimed, the burden of proof is on the person so claiming.
- In order to be exempt from the criminal liability of a conduct, it must be proved that at the time of committing the act, the person due to a defect of mind was not aware of nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
- If a person was conscious at the time of doing the act, to the fact that he ought not have done the act or that his act was contrary to law of the land, he is to be held criminally liable.
- A medical witness who does not have prior knowledge of the victim before the trial should not be implored on question of insanity of the accused on the evidence before him.
- When a person commits certain acts suffering from delusional insanity and thus not knowing the true nature of his acts, he will be held liable to the same degree as he would be if his conduct is evaluated in terms of the facts imagined by him.
Section 84 IPC:
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.
Ingredients of Section 84:
- At the time of committing the offence, the accused was of unsound mind.
- Because of the unsoundness of mind, he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act at the time of committing the offence. Or
- Because of the unsoundness of mind, he was not capable of knowing that he was doing something either wrong or contrary to law at the time of committing the offence.
Legal Insanity vis-à-vis Medical Insanity:
A person is legally insane when he is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. All legal insanity are medical insanity. A person who is suffering from mental disease or his brain is not quite all right is a medical insane. It includes all type of insanity. All medical insanity are not legal insanity.
According to the medical point of view, it is probably correct to say that every person, when committing a criminal act, is insane and therefore needs an exemption from criminal responsibility; while it is a legal point of view, a person must be held to be the sane as long as he is able to distinguish between right and wrong; as long as he knows that the act carried out is contrary to the law.
In Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66 case, Court said that there are four kinds of persons who may be non compos mentis (not of sound mind)
- An idiot: An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals and those are said to be Idiots who cannot count 20, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like. So idiocy as natural insanity.
- One made non compos by illness: A person made non compose by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under the influence of his disorder.
- A lunatic or a madman: A lunatic is one who is affected by mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason. madness is permanent. So, lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity.
- one who is drunk
In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109 case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 84 sets out the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged mental insanity. There is no definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC. However, the courts have mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself does not have a precise definition. It is a term used to describe various degrees of mental disorder. So, every mentally ill person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal responsibility. A distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, not medical insanity.
In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 6 January, 2011 case, the Supreme Court pointed out that ‘every person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability.’
In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 case, the Supreme Court observed “When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed.”
Incapacity to Know the Nature of the Act:
The word “incapacity to know the nature of the act” embodied in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code refers to that state of mind when the accused was unable to appreciate the effects of his conduct. It would mean that the accused is insane in every possible sense of the word, and such insanity must sweep away his ability to appreciate the physical effects of his acts.
In Amrit Bhushan Gupta v Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 608 case, the Court observed that if a person of unsound mind nevertheless retained his ability to know the nature of his acts, section 84 cannot be applied and said “If, at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant knew the nature of the act he was committing, he could not be absolved of responsibility for the grave offence of murder.”
Incapacity to Know Right or Wrong:
Here the accused may know the physical effects of his act, but he was unable to know that he was doing what was either “wrong” or “contrary to the law.” This part of Section 84 has made a new contribution to criminal law by introducing the concept of partial insanity as a defence against criminal insanity.
Case Laws:
In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P, JT 2002 (7) SC 627 case, it was well established by the court that the crucial point of time at which the unsound mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to benefit from Section 84 can only be determined from the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed the crime. In other words, it is the behaviour precedent, attendant and subsequent to the event that may be relevant in determining the mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense but not those remote in time.
In Kamala Bhuniya v. West Bengal State, 2006 CriLJ 998 case, the accused was tried for her husband’s murder with an axis. A suit was filed against the accused, she alleged to be insane at the time of the incident, the investigating officer recorded at the initial stage about the accused’s mental insanity. The prosecution’s duty was to arrange for the accused’s medical examination, it was held that there was no motive for murder. The accused made no attempt to flee, nor made any attempt to remove the incriminating weapon Failure on the part of the prosecution was to discharge his initial responsibility for the presence of mens-rea in the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. The accused was entitled to benefit from Section 84. And hence accused was proved insane at the time of the commission of the offence and was held guilty of Culpable Homicide and not of Murder.
In Bhikari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1 case, where few months before the occurrence, he had threatened to kill all the family members of the deceased. Further, on the date of the event, though there were other people around, he carefully chose only the children of the deceased’s family. All this indicated that hisact ions were deliberate, pre meditated and not acts of an insane man. So, defense of Section 84 not available.
In S K Nair v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1537 case, where the accused tried to assault a person with a dagger. The deceased caught hold of him and said that the matter will be reported to the superiors. The accused retorted to the deceased with the words ‘only if you were still alive’ and inflicted a blow with a khukri on the deceased and killed him. The defence of the accused was that he suffered from paranoia. A paranoid is not only a person of unsound mind, but also suffers from special and peculiar ideas and visions, which are different from other persons of unsound mind. A paranoid within moments may behave wildly and then be normal again. The threat meted out by the accused to the deceased showed that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused did not lose his sense of understanding. He was, therefore, convicted under s 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In State of Orissa v. Kalia Alias Debabrata Maharana, 2008 Cr LJ 271 case, where the accused murdered three people and wounded others, although no prior enmity or motive had been identified. The witnesses said he fled from one location to another, and on his way, he indiscriminately attacked five people without any excuse or rhyme. The proof suggests that the appellant had long developed insanity and had the right to the protection of this section.
Conclusion:
McNaughton Rules form the basis of the law related to the criminal liability of a person of unsound mind in India. Whenever a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind or not. Persons of unsound mind who commit a criminal act are not criminals. They do not deserve punishment, however, they require medical help. They can be a source of threat to the society and to their own selves, thus it is important to keep them under supervision. Punishment cannot reform them so they are to be placed either in safe custody or delivered to some relative or friend or be kept in an asylum.