Scribd
Upload
21 views6 pages

Insanity

Uploaded by

rajbhagat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views6 pages

Insanity

Uploaded by

rajbhagat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Insanity

Section 84- enshrines two maxims of criminal law, namely:


1. “Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”- “ act not culpable -unless -
mind is guilty”
2. “Furiosi nulla voluntas est”- “a mad man has no free

first case which dealt with law of insanity -R v. Arnold

 Edward Arnold attempted to kill Lord Onslow - evidence clearly


showed that - was suffering from a mental disorder
 observed that-“If he was under visitation of God- and could not
distinguish between good and evil- and did not know what he did- though
he committed the greatest offence- yet he could not be guilty of any
offence

second test evolved in Hadfield’s case

 Hadfield discharged from army on ground of insanity


 tried for high treason in attempting to assassinate King George III.
 stated that- insanity was to be determined- by the fact of fixed insane
delusion -and such delusion under which defendant acted -is the main
reason for his crime.

This test - known as “Insane Delusion Test.”

Mc’Naughten’s Rule
decide on question of criminal liability in cases where -accused -incapable
of understanding nature of the act

following principles cited:

1. If 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-and knows what he is
doing -and is responsible for the same.
3. To establish a defense based on insanity-must be ascertained-at the time
of perpetrating the act,-accused was in such a state of mind -as was
unable to know -nature of act committed by him
4. A person who has sufficient medical knowledge- or is familiar
with disease of insanity- cannot be asked to give his opinion -because it
is for jury to determine- decide upon the questions.

S.84 of the Indian Penal Code

 Nothing is an offence -committed by someone -who is currently unable to


know the nature of act -or does what is wrong or contrary to legislation-
due to a lack of a sound mind.

 term “insanity” -not used under this provision.


 uses the sentence “mental soundness.”
Essential ingredients of S.84 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)

1. Act must be done by person of unsound mind


2. Such person -unsound- at the time of committing act
3. Such person -not capable to know -nature of act
4. act he was doing -was either wrong or contrary to law

Distinction between Legal and Medical Insanity

S.84 -sets out the legal responsibility test- as distinguished from -the medical
test.

Legal insanity -narrower than medical insanity

To invoke S.84 –
must be proved that -unsoundness of mind -of such a degree- which should
be capable to fulfil -any one of the test laid down under S.84 i.e :

1. accused -incapable of knowing -nature of the act


2. accused -not capable of understanding that -what he was doing -was
either wrong -or contrary to Law

Incapability to know nature of Act:

 refers to that state of mind -when the accused was unable to appreciate
the effects of his conduct.
 Insanity -not only affects ours cognitive faculty -but also affects our
emotions
 but Indian Law - only gives exceptions -to those insanity cases -which
affects only cognitive faculty
 in cases like insanity - emotions are not considered - because if insanity
affects our cognitive faculty- person is not capable to control his actions -
and also do not know -effects of the action.

Incapacity to know right or wrong:

 person- if able to know -nature of act -but not able to know -what was
wrong or contrary to law -can get insanity defense .
 This ground of exemption -most important in cases where -mental disease
has caused partial insanity .
 eg : a person under delusions -but otherwise sane -cannot be acquitted
on ground of insanity- unless those delusions -caused the person to think
those things -which if existed -would have excused his act.
 not necessary that -accused should be completely insane
 What is required is-although the accused knew the physical effects of his
act-he was unable to know that- he was doing what was either “wrong” or
“contrary to the law.”

Medical Insanity:
 According to medical science - insanity is a type of disease- which
disturbs -mental faculty of a person-and leads to working of one or two
functions of brain -in an abnormal way -or not function at all
 here are four kinds of person which are categorised into unsound mind
and these are as follows:

1. Idiot: non-sane since his/her birth without any lucid intervals


2. Lunatic : who is triggered of mental disorder only for certain period .
3. Non Compos Mentis (not of sound mind) by illness: not know what
he/she is doing -and prolonged disease cause fits of delirium a
4. One who is under intoxication

 mere abnormality of mind + partial delusion + irresistible impulse or


compulsive behavior -not provide protection- S.84

Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh

 every mentally ill person -not ipso facto exempt from criminal
responsibility.
 A distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical insanity.
 court is concerned with legal insanity- not medical insanity.

In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P

 crucial point of time- at which the unsound mind should be established- is


the time when -crime is actually committed
 it is the behavior precedent, attendant and subsequent to event -that may
be relevant in determining -mental condition of accused -at the time
of commission of offense- but not those remote in
Irresistible Impulse as a defence

 Irresistible impulse- is a sort of insanity- where the person -unable to


control his actions -even if he has understanding that -the act is wrong.

Under English Law


Lorena Bobbit (1993),

 defendant took a knife from her kitchen- and wounded her husbandby
cutting off his penis
 contended that -she had been suffering from domestic violence,
 Though she was well aware of the consequences-she was not able to
control her actions -contended that she was subject to an irresistible
impulse.
 held that she’s not guilty -as she was suffering from temporary insanity

Under Indian Law


 when there is adequate capacity to distinguish between right and
wrong-mere presence of an irresistible impulse -not excuse liability

Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya v. State of Kerala

 to claim an exemption under S.84-insanity has to be proved- at the time


of commission of an act
 mere losing of self-control -due to excitement or irresistible impulse -no
defence under Indian law -even if this is proved in a court of law.

Ganesh v. Shrawan

 mere fact that -murder is committed by accused on an irresistible


impulse-and there is no identifiable motive for commission of the
act- no grounds for accepting -defence of insanity.

Durham Rule

Durham v. United States (1954)

 defendant was guilty of breaking into a house -and demanded plea of


insanity in his defence.
 Observed that-defendant must possess a mental disease or infirmity.
 must rely more on objective, psychological standards- rather than
focusing on defendant’s subjective cognition.
 If criminal behavior is “caused” by mental disease or defect-
then conduct should be exempted under the circumstances

been regarded too broad

Concept of Diminished Responsibility


Doctrine of Diminished Responsibility -introduced by -Homicide Act of
1957- as a defence to murder.
Section 2 of the Act -

 Where a person kills someone -or is a party to killing- will not be guilty
of murder- if he was suffering from some abnormality of mind- and is
mentally incapable of taking responsibility for his acts.
 person who would be liable under this section- will be convicted of
manslaughter instead of being convicted of murder.

Diminished Responsibility-close association with -offence of Insanity

 -as it involves -psychological condition of the defendant.


 However- unlike English Law-Indian Law -not deal with statutory
defence of Diminished Responsibility.
 is evident from Section 300 of IPC-which relates to offence of murder.
 The section offers five exceptions to offence of murder- yet none of them
refers to plea of diminished responsibility.
 In plea of insanity- it is insignificant whether -defendant
comprehended what he was doing and could realize that it wasn't right.
 If he succeeds in his defence, he will be found guilty for manslaughter
and not murder.

Law commission -considered test of diminished responsibility-and gave a


negative opinion about its application

 it is respectfully subitted - law commission view needs modification-


because it is not in conformity with latest scientific and technological
advances

 Assuming that mind has 3 components -Conrolling Cognition-Emotion-


Will
 84 outdated -because it makes no provison -for situations where ones
emotions ani will -are so affected -that control of cognitive faculties are
rendered ineffective

 COurts in India -have adopted a progressive approach in application of


S.84 -in light of-recent advances in medical science -especially in field
of psychiatry
 Therefor Indian law -should be on the lines of english law -and
Defence of diminished responsibility -should be recognised as a partial
defence - to murder

Dayabhai Thakkar V Gijrat


Material circumstances which help to draw interference regarding mental
condition.

1. Motive
2. Preparation
3. Desire for concealment
4. Making statements which are false
5. Conduct before - at the time and after -commission of offence

automatism [pyq]

 IPC -not expressly recognize theory of voluntariness -and theory of


automatism -which is a subset of voluntariness.
 Automatism -a form of an involuntary act -which may be spontaneous or
performed unconsciously.
 Whenever insanity pleaded by accused -and is being rejected -due to
insufficiency of evidence- regarding mental stage of the accused- then in
such a situation -accused can raise an alternative defence of automatism.
 In cases of automatism-accused is required to produce evidence
regarding his state of mind proving -that he was under -influence of
automatism at time when he committed crime.

 English law classifies automatism into non-insane automatism and insane


automatism.
 Under non-insane automatism- law grants a direct acquittal of accused
without any special provisions for state intervention after acquittal

 whereas acquittals under defence of insane automatism -followed


by state interventions in form of medical care of accused.

Burden Of Proof in cases of Insanity

 burden of proving offence -always on prosecution


 has to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt .
 But onus of proving -elements in S.84 of IPC -on the accused ( section
105 of Evidence act ).

To claim the defense of insanity defense

1. Prosecution -to prove beyond reasonable doubt that -offence was


committed by accused with mens rea
2. Insanity is a rebuttable presumption
3. accused can bring oral , circumstantial or documentary evidence -to
rebut presumption of sanity at ant time to claim defense of S.84 of IPC
4. accused not have to prove elements of S.84 IPC beyond reasonable
doubt
5. Even if insanity not proved-still crates reasonable duty-among courts

You might also like