Introduction

It is an established criminal law jurisprudence that a person committing an offence has guilty
intentions to commit such crimes and in furtherance, the person must also do some acts with
such intention. However, it is practically impossible for an insane person to determine if
his/her acts would constitute a crime or that such acts will take away the life of another
person and therefore such person lacks requisite mens rea and cannot be held liable for
his/her acts.
The word insanity has not been mentioned anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
However, Section 84 of IPC reserves the term ‘unsoundness of mind’ and states that nothing
is an offence which is done by a person who, while doing such acts, is incapable of
determining the nature of such acts due to unsoundness of mind.

The defence under Section 84 is established on the jurisprudence that a person who cannot
understand what he/she is doing or what are the consequences of committed acts, shall not
attract the punitive measures of IPC. The plea of insanity can also be understood by the Latin
maxim, “Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea” which means “an act does not make
anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a guilty mind” and “Furiosi nulla voluntas
est” which means a madman has no will.
Insanity is often considered a mental disorder, however, the Indian judiciary is not concerned
with medical insanity but legal insanity. Legal insanity differs from medical insanity, thus
causing a debate among legal professions and medical professionals.
rigins of insanity
The origins of insanity as a defence can be traced back to the early establishments of
government where they recognized that it is unjustified to punish a person of unsound mind.
The first recorded source of insanity as a defence can be traced back to Hammurabi’s code
which dates back to around 1772 BC.
The Romans also practiced the defence of insanity where they found people non-compos
mentis (without mastery of mind), and people were not held responsible for their criminal
actions and this evolved concept is found in contemporary times as the principle of ‘mens
rea’.
Initially, the good and evil test first appeared in the year 1313, on the beliefs of biblical and
religious concepts.
Historical tests laid down
Certain tests laid down to determine insanity are:
1. Good and evil test: The first test to determine insanity as a defence was laid down in
the good and evil test, which was based on the beliefs of the Bible and religion. The
test first appeared in 1313 in a case that was concerned with the capacity of a child
below the age of 7. The test held that like children below the age of 7 are incapable of
knowing the nature of their act, the insane person was thought of as a child who is not
capable of knowing the nature of the act or cannot distinguish “good from the evil”.
 The good and evil test was used from the 14th Century to the 16th century, but it was
later abandoned.
2. The Wild beast test: First appeared in the case of Rex v. Arnold, 1724, where the
accused was tried for shooting at Lord Onslow because Lord Onslow bewitched him.
The relatives of the accused also testified that he was suffering from delusions. The
court ruled that the defendant shall be acquitted due to his suffering from insanity and
that he did not know what he was doing in a similar way like a “wild beast”. The test
continued to apply for a century.
3. The right and wrong test: The actual predecessor of the M’Naghten rule is the right
and wrong test which originated in the case of Regina v. Oxford, 1840, where the jury
held that it is very important to determine, whether the prisoner was of unsound mind
at the time of doing such acts or if some disease was acting within him, by which he
could not resist the committed acts. Later in the year 1843, the M’Naghten case,
(1843) led to the landmark case of determining the insanity of an accused in the court
of law.
Mc’Naughten’s Rule
There have been several tests from time to time, like the Wild Beast Test, Insane Delusion
Test, etc. But the most important is the “Right and Wrong Test” formulated in M’Naughten’s
case.
The case of M’Naghten briefly unfolds as in the year 1843, Mr. M’Naghten attempts the
assassination of the then Prime Minister of England Sir Robert Peel but he however kills the
secretary of the Prime Minister believing the secretary to be Prime Minister himself. The
medical experts on the case considered Mr. Naghten to be of unsound mind. The incident was
followed by public outrage as subsequently, the House of Lords asked the parliament to
widen the definition of insanity.
The following principles were cited:
1. If the person knew what he was doing or was only under a partial delusion, then he is
punishable.
2. There is an assumption that every man is prudent or sane and knows what he is doing
and is responsible for the same.
3. To establish a defense based on insanity, it must be ascertained, at the time of
perpetrating the act, the accused was in such a state of mind as was unable to know
the nature of the act committed by him.
4. A person who has sufficient medical knowledge, or is a medical man and is familiar
with the disease of insanity cannot be asked to give his opinion because it is for the
jury to determine, and decide upon the questions.

Indian Law on the Defence of Insanity

In Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a person of an unsound mind shall act- Nothing is an
offence committed by someone who is currently unable to know the nature of the act or does
what is wrong or contrary to legislation due to a lack of a sound mind.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the framers of the IPC preferred to use the expression
“insanity of mind” instead of the term “insanity.” Insanity’s scope is very limited, while the
mind’s insanity covers a large area.

For this defence, the following elements are to be established-

1. The accused was in a state of unsoundness of mind at the time of the act.
2. He was unable to know the nature of the act or do what was either wrong or
contrary to the law. The term ‘wrong’ is different from the term ‘contrary to the
law.’

1. The accused must be of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offence.
[book]
2. The accused must not be capable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was
doing was wrong or contrary to law.
To get the benefit of Section 84 the cognitive faculties of the mind must be so impaired that
the accused becomes incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or
contrary to law. In Queen Empress v K N Shah [1896] the accused was suffering from mental
derangement for some time. A person put his son in the company of the accused and on
returning he found the accused hiding in the jungle and his son was killed by the accused.
The court held that the circumstances attending the murder showed that he was not deprived
of the reasoning power to distinguish between right and wrong (e.g. he hid himself in the
jungle). Similarly in the case of Laxmi v State[1959], the accused a drug addict was
convicted for the murder of his stepbrother. He assaulted his stepbrother with a pharsa and
then fled the spot. The court held him guilty and not entitled to the benefit under section 84 as
he knew the nature of his act as evident from his fleeing the spot to evade arrest.
Distinction between Legal and Medical Insanity
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code sets out the legal responsibility test as distinguished from
the medical test. It can be observed that the absence of will arises not only from the absence
of understanding maturity but also from a morbid state of mind. This morbid mind condition,
which provides an exemption from criminal responsibility, differs from the medical and legal
point of view. 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 same
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.
It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that “mentally ill” people and psychopaths are unable
to seek immunity from a criminal case, as it is their responsibility to demonstrate insanity at
the time the crime was committed. So in practice, not every person who is mentally ill is
exempt from criminal liability. There has to be a distinction between legal insanity and
medical insanity. “Arijit Pasayat and the Bench of Justices, DK Jain, stated while upholding
the life conviction of a man who cut off his wife’s head. The mere abnormality of mind,
partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of a psychopath does not provide
protection from criminal prosecution as provided by the apex court held Section 84 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Bench stated that Section 84 of the IPC, which provides
immunity from criminal prosecution to persons of unsound mind, would not be available to
an accused, as the burden of proving insanity would lie with them, as provided in Section 105
of the Indian Evidence.
In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], 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 the case of Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand[2], It was pointed out that ‘every
person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability.’
Furthermore, in the case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra[3], the
Supreme Court, in determining the offense under Section 84 of the IPC, held that’ it is the
totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the recorded evidence’ that would prove that
the offense was committed.’ It was added: “The unsoundness of the mind before and after the
incident is a relevant fact.”
Unsoundness of mind must be at the time of the commission of the Act.
The first thing a court to be considered when defending insanity is whether the accused has
established that he was unsound at the time of committing the act. The word “insanity” is not
used in Section 84 of the penal code.
In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P[4], 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 behavior 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, 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.
Burden of proof
It is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person is presumed innocent
until proven guilty and until then the burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests
upon the prosecution and this onus of proof always lies on the prosecution however Section
84 of IPC is an exception to this rule.
It was held in the case of Gelsing Pida Pawar v State of Maharashtra, 2010, that the burden
of proof of circumstances to bring the case within the ambit of Section 84 of IPC rests upon
the accused under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. However, the burden of proof on the
accused is not equal to the burden of proof on the prosecution.
In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat, 1964, it was held that:
 The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
the offence, and such burden to prove always lies on the prosecution throughout the
trial,
 There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane at the time of the
commission of the offence and the accused may rebut such presumption by placing all
the relevant evidence, oral, documentary, or circumstantial however the burden of
proof upon him is not higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings,
 Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the
time of the commission of an offence, the evidence placed before the court by either
party to the proceedings may raise a reasonable doubt before the court and the
accused shall be entitled to an acquittal because the prosecution did not discharge the
general burden of proof.
In the case of Butu @ Madhua Oram vs State, 1985, the Orissa High court held that the
accused is not called to prove the ingredient of Section 84 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt to
get an acquittal from criminal charges. However, it is sufficient if the pieces of evidence
shown lead to the inference that the requirements of Section 84 may be probable.
Conclusion
The defence of insanity is a serious issue in contemporary times since the defence is used as a
tool by hardened criminals to get away from criminal liability. The defence of insanity has
numerous issues like difficulty in determining the mental incapacity of an individual. The
process to determine such insanity is also very slow. Therefore, it creates an issue not only for
those who are liable for an offence but also for those who are innocent and have some mental
disorder.
The current test to determine the insanity of a person is not very reliable since the court is
concerned with only legal insanity which is determined by the acts of a person before, during,
and after committing an act that is contrary to law.
The laws of insanity need to be amended or abandoned since it has caused many issues in the
legal mechanism. The defence of insanity plays a significant responsibility in protecting the
human rights of the individual who is suffering from some mental disorder and therefore the
task of determining the insanity shall be performed with utmost accountability.