TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ORIGIN OF INSANITY LAW

3. INCEPTION IN INDIA

4. SECTION 84

 COMMENT

 ESSENTIALS

5. KINDS OF INSANE PEOPLE

6. DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL INSANITY

7. WHEN TO PLEAD

8. LANDMARK CASES

9. CONCLUSION

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION

The concept of responsibility connects with our most fundamental convictions about
human nature and dignity and everyday experience of guilt and innocence and blame and
punishment. Punishing a person, who is not responsible for the crime, is a violation of the basic
human rights and fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. It also brings the due
process of law, if that person is not in a position to defend himself in the court of law, evoking
the principle of natural justice. The affirmative defense of legal insanity applies to this
fundamental principle by excusing those mentally disordered offenders whose disorder deprived
them of rational understanding of their conduct at the time of the crime. Hence, it is generally
admitted that incapacity to commit crimes exempts the individual from punishment. This is
recognized by the legislation of most of the civilized nations. Even in India, Section 84 of Indian
Penal Code (IPC) deals with the “act of a person of unsound mind” and discusses insanity
defense. However, in the recent past some of the U.S. states (such as Montana, Idaho, Kansas,
and Utah) have banned insanity defense. This issue has raised a serious debate among medical,
psychology and law professionals across the world.

Very little research has been done on this topic in India, however, there are few studies
on exploring the clinical picture of the patients in prison. A landmark study in the forensic
psychiatry of Indian setting occurred in 2011, in which 5024 prisoners were assessed on semi-
structured interview schedule reported that 4002 (79.6%) individuals could be diagnosed as
having a diagnosis of either mental illness or substance use. After excluding substance abuse,
1389 (27.6%) prisoners still had a diagnosable mental disorder. Another study from India portray
a very gloomy picture of patients in forensic psychiatry settings and advocate for there is a need
to streamline the procedure of referral, diagnosis, treatment, and certification. To address this
issue of streamlining the process of evaluation of insanity defense and certification, this article
focuses on semi-structured assessment in the Indian context based on landmark Supreme Court
decisions. In addition, it will also present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental status
examination and briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity
defense evaluations.1

ORIGIN OF INSANITY LAW

1
www.shareyouressays.com
The concept of defense by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. However,
in colonial America a delusional Dorothy Talbye was hanged in 1638 for murdering her
daughter, as at the time Massachusetts's common law made no distinction
between insanity (or mental illness) and criminal behavior. Edward II, under English Common
law, declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than that of a "wild
beast" (in the sense of a dumb animal, rather than being frenzied). The first complete transcript
of an insanity trial dates to 1724. It is likely that the insane, like those under 14, were spared trial
by ordeal. When trial by jury replaced this, the jury members were expected to find the insane
guilty but then refers the case to the King for a Royal Pardon. From 1500 onwards, juries could
acquit the insane, and detention required a separate civil procedure (Walker, 1985). The Criminal
Lunatics Act 1800, passed with retrospective effect following the acquittal of James Hadfield,
mandated detention at the regent's pleasure (indefinitely) even for those who, although insane at
the time of the offence, were now sane. The M'Naghten Rules of 1843 were not a codification or
definition of insanity but rather the responses of a panel of judges to hypothetical questions
posed by Parliament in the wake of Daniel M'Naghten's acquittal for the homicide of Edward
Drummond, whom he mistook for British Prime Minister Robert Peel. The rules define the
defense as "at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect
of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was
doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong." The key is that the defendant could
not appreciate the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime. M'Naghten's Case, 8
Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).

In Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the US Supreme Court upheld the common

law rule that the insane cannot be executed. In Wainwright v. Greenfield, the Court ruled that it
was fundamentally unfair for the prosecutor to comment during the court proceedings on the
petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a Miranda warning. The prosecutor had argued that the
respondent's silence after receiving Miranda warnings was evidence of his sanity.2

INCEPTION IN INDIA

2
http://blog.mylaw.net/a-short-history-of-the-insanity-defence/
The characteristic features of insanity preclude the application of the retributive and
deterrent theories of criminal justice against someone who is insane. The criminal’s insanity
often softens society’s desire for revenge and sanctions would not be able to deter a person who
may not comprehend their significance. The insanity defence in criminal law has primarily been
built on the philosophy that the rehabilitative theory may work better in this case. Moreover, the
fundamental maxim that an act does not constitute a crime unless it is done with a guilty
intention, exempts an individual from criminal responsibility if that person was incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that the act was unlawful.

It is interesting to compare this position of law with the observations of the Law
Commission of India in this regard. The Commission, while revisiting Section 84, concluded
unequivocally that an “irresistible impulse” could not find a place in the existing provision since
it is not strictly considered “insanity”, and that its inclusion within Section 84 would make the
trial of the issue more difficult for the judges. This exclusion may be justified by the use of the
term “unsoundness of mind” over “insanity”, and by its emphasis on the capacity to distinguish
between legal and illegal actions. However, this does not sufficiently account for variations in
volitional capacity, leaving it to be measured and used in absolute terms instead, a stance that is
reflective of Nineteenth Century notions of psychiatry and psychology.
SECTION 84

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.

 Comment:
Generally mens rea is taken to be an essential for criminal offence. It is said that furioss
nulla voluntus est. in other words, a person if suffering from mental disorder can’t be said
that he did that crime as he doesn’t know what he was doing. Intention and act both are
taken to be constitutes of crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and
sane human being is expected to posses some degree of reason to be responsible for
his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. A person who is suffering from mental
disorder or unsound mind cant posses that reason.3

 Essentials
i. The accused must, at time of commission of the act be of unsound mind;
ii. The unsoundness must be such as to make the accused at the time when he is that
he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law.4 Where it is proved that the accused
has committed multiple murders while suffering from mental derangement of
some sort and it is found that there is a) absence of any motive, b) absence of
secrecy, c) want of pre-arrangement, and d) want of accomplices, it would be
reasonable to hold that the circumstances are sufficient to support the inference
that the accused suffered from unsoundness of mind
It is the duty of honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and
place that evidence before the court and if this is not done. Prosecution is duty bound to
subject the accused to a medical examination immediately. Similarly every person is also
presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts.

3
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602: AIR 2012 SC 1: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 406.
4
State of Maharashtra v. Govind Mhatarba Shinde; 2010 Cr LJ 3586 (Bom).
KINDS OF INSANE PEOPLE

There are four kinds of person who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind):
1) an idiot; 2) one made non compos by illness; 3) a lunatic or a madman; and 4) one who is
drunk.

1) 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 can’t count twenty, or tell the
days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like.
2) A person made non compos mentis by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts
as are committed while under the influence of his disorder
3) A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods and
vicissitudes, having intervals of reason Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are
spoken of as acquired insanity, and idiocy as natural insanity.
4) As to persons who are drunk.5

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 twenty, or tell the days of the week, or
who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like, (See Archbold's Criminal Pleadings,
Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn. pp.31-32; Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn.
Vol., p.105; 1 Hala's Pleas of the Grown 34). A person made non compos men-us by illness is
excused in criminal cases from such acts as are- committed while under the influence of his
disorder, (See 1 Hale PC 30). A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain
periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason, (See Russell, 12 Edn. Vol. 1, p. 103; Hale
PC 31). Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, and
idiocy as natural insanity.

5
Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66: JT 2007 (9) SC 110: 2007 AIR SCW 308: 2007 (7) SCR 917: (2007)
8 SCALE 455: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 509.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL INSANITY

The Supreme Court in a case of general defense, while drawing the difference between

legal and medical insanity rules that Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases
of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of `unsoundness of mind' in IPC. The
courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term
`insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental
disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is
concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity.

An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression "unsoundness of
mind" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent
to insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes
varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not
ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd,
irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which
he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain
unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and
there was abnormal behavior or the behavior is queer are not sufficient to attract the application
of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.6

6
http://criminallawyersdelhi.blogspot.in
WHEN TO PLEAD

The plea can’t be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court for which no foundation was
established before.7 The accused, after murdering his wife by strangualtionwent over to the house
of hi sneighbur, with a chopper and laid down in the veranda. He didn’t go away from there in
spite of the repeated demandsmade to hime. The Plea of Insanity raised for the first time in 313
examination. Plea rejected.8

7
PSLVN Sastry v. Advocate General HC of A.P., (2007) 15 SCC 271.
8
Sankaran v. State, 133 Cr LJ 1173 (Ker.).
LANDMARK CASES

 State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602: AIR 2012 SC 1: (2012) 1 SCC
(Cri) 406.

S. 84 and Ch. IV - Unsoundness of mind as defence - Jurisprudential basis for - Absence of

mens rea - Thinking faculty of accused impaired to such an extent that intention/knowledge
requisite to constitute an offence cannot be imputed to him - Held, absolves him of culpability -
Hence, respondent killing deceased while in state of insanity induced by epileptic fit, rightly
acquitted, (2012) 1 SCC 602-A.

Ss. 302 and 84 and Ch. IV - Unsoundness of mind as defence - Documentary and oral
evidence required to be led by accused to bring his case within S. 84 - Oral evidence of doctor
indicating that respondent was suffering from postepileptic insanity - Prescription slip showing
that medicines for epilepsy as well as insanity had been prescribed - There was also evidence that
respondent was getting treatment for mental sickness while in jail - Evidence of a family member
(brother) further showing that respondent developed mental disorder six years prior to incident
and was continuing in that state - Respondent acted violently and disruptively in his house before
killing deceased (temple priest) and was in a state of post-epileptic insanity while attacking
deceased - Held, respondent discharged burden of proof and was entitled to acquittal under S. 84,
though to be detained in safe custody till he was cured, (2012) 1 SCC 602-B.

S. 84 - Unsoundness of mind - Post-epileptic insanity - Symptoms - Temporary loss of

memory and violent behaviour - Medical evidence accepted that patient after epileptic attack is
not able to recognise even persons known to him and can commit any violent act, (2012) 1 SCC
602-C.

Unsoundness of mind - Instances of - Hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory or self-

control, (2012) 1 SCC 602-D.9

9
http://www.supremecourtcases.com
 Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66: JT 2007 (9) SC 110: 2007 AIR SCW
308: 2007 (7) SCR 917: (2007) 8 SCALE 455: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 509.
During trial a plea was taken that the accused was of unsound mind and, therefore,
entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC. Same was rejected by trial Court. The High
Court also found that the plea regarding applicability of Section 84 IPC was not
acceptable. It found that though some of the witnesses stated about the accused suffering
from unsoundness of mind, the crucial question was whether at the time of commission
of offence the accused was incapable to understand the nature of the act committed by
him or suffered from insanity and had to be given protection under Section 84 IPC. The
High Court found that Section 84 IPC has correctly been applied.10

 State of Maharashtra v. Govind Mhatarba Shinde; 2010 Cr LJ 3586 (Bom).

According to learned counsel for Respondent/ accused, judgment of the trial Court is
based on the material brought on record. Plea of the accused has been considered within
the parameters of section 84 of the IPC and accused has been justifiably acquitted of the
offence under punishable section 302.11

 Siddhapal Kamala Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra [2008] INSC 1718 (13 October 2008).
The trial Court, as noted above, discarded the defence of mental illness as raised by the accused
and found him guilty. The accused reiterated its stand of general exception under Section 84 of
the IPC before the High Court. It was submitted that at the time of occurrence by reason of
unsoundness of mind the appellant was incapable to knowing the nature of the act and was,
therefore, entitled to protection under Section 84 IPC. The High Court did not find any substance
in the plea and dismissed the appeal. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in
cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There, is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the
IPC. Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. So, every
person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A
distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A Court is concerned with
legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. 12

10
https://indiankanoon.org
11
ibid
12
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2008/october/45.php
CONCLUSION

The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the
time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from
disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if
he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The
crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the
material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant
circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the: defence of
insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness
of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of:
exemption from criminal responsibility. 

The research questions are proved that, 1) when doing crime if a person has unsound
mind then he is acquitted of crime, he will not be liable. 2)everyone who is of unsound mind and
tested and verified and who has legal insanity when doing crime is acquitted from crime done.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES:

 www.shareyouressays.com

 http://blog.mylaw.net/a-short-history-of-the-insanity-defence/
 http://criminallawyersdelhi.blogspot.in
 http://www.supremecourtcases.com
 https://indiankanoon.org
 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2008/october/45.php

BOOKS: