Legal Provisions Regarding “Persons of Unsound Mind” in India – Section 84 of IPC

Chapter-IV, containing Sections from 76 to 106, explains about General Exceptions Act of
a person of unsound mind is exempted from the criminal liability under Section 84 of
Chapter-IV (General Exception).

Section 84 exonerates a person of mental incapacity who did a criminal act. To constitute
guilt, a guilty mind (mens rea) is required.

There are certain persons, viz., insane persons, children, intoxicated, drunken persons, who
cannot possess guilty mind and do not know the nature of the criminal act they are doing.

Meaning:

“Insanity” means and includes both mental derangement and imbecility. The basis,
therefore, is that such a person is not of sound mind, but is non compos mentis, (not of
sound mind).

That is to say, he does not know the nature of the act he is doing, as what is either wrong or
contrary to law. Unsoundness of mind covers a wide range and is synonymous with
insanity, lunacy, madness, mental derangement, mental disorder and mental aberration or
alienation.

Whether they want of capacity is temporary or permanent, natural or supervening,

whether it arises from disease, or exists from the time of birth, it is included in the term
“Unsoundness of mind” Every man is presumed to be sane and to possess sufficient degree
of reason to be responsible for his crime until the contrary is proved. Under Section 105 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the proof of burden lies upon the accused.

Sec. 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.

Ingredients:

A criminal act is exempted from punishment,

(i) if the accused is a person of unsound mind;

(ii) if he, at the time of doing it, does not know the nature of the act; or

(iii) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law

1. Non compos mentis (Not of Sound Mind):

There are four types of persons of unsound mind:—

(i) An idiot;

(ii) A person becomes unsound mind due to illness;

(iii) A lunatic or a madman; and

(iv) A person heavily drank or consumed any intoxicated material.

An idiot is a person, who does not possess any rational thinking capacity and completely
lest his memory from his birth, without lucid intervals. A lunatic is a person affected
mental disorder only at a certain periods and with lucid intervals. Between the gaps, he
possesses rational thinking and normal behaviour.

A person heavily intoxicated also becomes non compos mentis during the affect of the
intoxication.

2. At the time of doing the act:

This is the most important phrase in Section 84. The accused must have been insane at the
time of doing the wrongful act. The burden of proof lies upon the accused. The insanity
before or after the act does not become the defence of the accused.

3. Nature of the act:

Third essential and important point to note that the accused does not know the nature of
the act what he is doing, or its affects, or whether it is contrary to law or contrary to
morals, at the time of doing it. If he knows, Section 84 could not defend him.

English Law:

English law recognises insanity as a possible defence. In Arnold case, the Court declared
that the accused was totally deprived of his understanding and memory and did not know
what he was doing, nor more than an infant, a brute or a wild beast.

Mac Naughton’s case (1843) 4 St Tr (NS) 847

Brief Facts:

In 1843, Mac Naughten killed Mr. Drummond, the Private Secretary of Sir Robert Peel,
and the then Prime Minister of England. Mc Naughten was under the insane delusion that
Sir Peel had injured him and again was going to injure him. So one day mistaking
Drummand for Sir Peel, he shot and killed him. He was tried for murder before Chief
Justice Tindol.
Defence Counsel pleaded that due to insanity the accused was not able to know that he was
violating laws. Medical report produced in support of proof showed that the accused was
labouring under a morbid delusion which carried him away beyond the power of self
control.

Judgment:

Mc. Naughten was acquitted on ground of insanity. This case created a sensation in
England and debates were conducted, including in the House of Lords. Fifteen Law Lords
formulated some principles which later become famous as “Mc. Naughten Principles of
Insanity”.

1. Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be

responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of jury.

2. To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly 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 if he
did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

3. As to his knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, the judges said,

“if the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if that act
was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.”

4. Where a person, under an insane delusion as to existing facts commits, an offence in

consequence thereof criminality must depend on the nature of the delusion. If he labours
under partial delusion only, and is not in other respects insane, he must be considered in
the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion
exists were real.

5. A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be asked to give
his opinion as to the state of accused’s mind.

These Rules are still received in the Courts of England, and have binding authority on the
defence of insanity.

In India:

Mc Naughten’s principles have been adopted in India too. Section 84 contains the three
important principles of them.

Dahyabhai Chhaganbai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563)

Brief Facts:
The appellant was the husband of Kalavati. They married in 1958. He did not like his wife.
He was employed in Ahmadabad. Ten months before the incidence of the case, he wrote a
letter to his father-in-law stating that he did not like Kalavati.

Again after some months he asked him to take away his daughter to his house. Kaiavathi’s
father wrote that he would take his daughter on or before 9-4-1959. He did not come on
that day.

On the night of 9-4-1959, the appellant and his wife bolted the door and slept as usual. At
about 3.00 a.m., Kalavati shouted that her husband was beating, stabbing and cried to
protect her.

The neighbours collected and called the accused. The accused came out. Kalavati was
found dead with a number of wounds. In the trial the accused took the plea of insanity.

The Sessions Judge did not believe the evidence of insanity and convicted the accused with
rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302. On appeal the High Court upheld the
conviction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court did not believe the version of the appellant, upheld the conviction of
the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

Principles:

The Supreme Court summarised the principles of law in the following succinct and
felicitous language in dealing with the Doctrine of Burden of Proof in the context of the
plea of insanity:

1. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed
the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving always rests on the
prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.

2. There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed
the crime, in the sense laid down by Sec. 84 I.P.C., the accused may rebut it by placing
before the Court all the relevant evidence – oral, documentary or circumstantial. However,
the burden of proof lies upon the accused is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil
proceedings.

3. Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time
he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by
prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more
of ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court
would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof
resting on the prosecution was not discharged.
Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. State (AIR 1950 CrLJ 225)

Brief Facts: The accused Ashiruddin was commanded by someone in paradise to sacrifice
his own son, aged 4 years.

Next Morning Ashiruddin took his son to a Mosque and killed him. He then went straight
to his uncle but finding a Chowkidar nearby, took the uncle nearby a tank at some distance
and slowly told him the story.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court opined that the accused was still entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 as
even though he knew the nature of the act he did not know that it was wrong.

Paras Ram vs. State of Punjab (1981) 2 SCC 508)

Brief Facts:

The accused-1 was the father of the victim boy, and other accused were his near relatives.
The accused was made to believe that if he would sacrifice his son to the God, huge wealth
would be accrued to him. Believing it, the accused killed the boy before the idol of the God.
The accused pleaded insanity.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the act of the accused was barbaric and inhuman, and such
acts should not be encouraged in the society. Their Lordships opined that the accused
intentionally did the heinous act. The accused were convicted.

Ashok Dattatraya vs. State of Maharashtra (1993 CrLJ 3450 Bom)

Brief Facts:

The accused’s mother had some money. The accused had been quarrelling with his mother
for money. He threatened his mother to kill her. His sister intervened. He became annoyed
and killed her with an axe, later absconded from the village for three months.

He was found doing labour work in the neighbour village. On prosecution, the accused
took the plea of insanity. He produced the evidence that prior to the incidence, he suffered
with mental derangement.

Judgment:

The Court did not accept the defence under Section 84. The Court opined that the accused
was not insane at the time of the wrongful act.
Amruta vs. State of Maharashtra (1996 CrLJ 1416 (Bom.)

Brief Facts:

The accused killed his wife. Later he danced with a dog, and keeping a broken bottle on his
head. The prosecution proved that the accused was never suffered mental derangement at
any time either before, at the time or after the incidence. His dancing was only afterthought
plan to take the plea of insanity.

Judgment:

The accused was convicted.

State of U.P. vs. Lakshmi (1998 SCC 336 SC)

Brief Facts:

The accused was alleged that he killed his wife during the wee hours of 8-2-1975 by
inflicting blows with a phali (a spade like agricultural implement) on the head of the
deceased.

She died on the spot. The accused took the plea of unsoundness of mind. The trial Court
did not accept his plea, and convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. On appeal, the High
Court converted the conviction to that under Sec. 304 Part-I.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court gave the punishment to the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of six years.

S.K. Nair vs. State of Punjab (SC 1997 SCC 141)

Brief Facts: The appellant S.K. Nair was charged for committing murder of Naik B.
Chowdhury and causing injuries with a khukri (Nepalese dagger) to two others in the early
morning of 13-8-1982.

The four were the army officials, dwelling in the same barrack. The deceased woke up at
4.45 a.m. on 13- 8-1982 and found S.K. Nair with khukri.

The deceased questioned for it and instructed the appellant to keep away khukri, else he
would report the matter to the higher officials. The appellant became annoyed and retorted
that he would be produced before the officials only if Chowdhury was alive by then.

Saying so, the accused started inflicting khukri blows on the person of the deceased and
dealt 19 blows on different parts of his body. Joga Singh, driver and Kashyap intervened to
stop the accused, but they also suffered injuries in the hand of accused.
In defence, it was contended that the accused was suffering with permanent Paranoia and
was incapable of understanding what he had been doing at the time of commission of the
said offence.

The defence counsel had submitted that a paranoid is not only a person of unsound mind
but a paranoid suffers from special and peculiar ideas and visions which are different from
other persons of unsound mind.

As a result a paranoid within moments may completely loose his normal frame of mind and
be seized of special emotions thereby impelled to behave wildly and such sudden fit of
emotion may also vanish within moments. Evidence was also produced that the military
doctor who treated the accused recommended discharging him from service.

Judgment:

The Additional Sessions Judge, considering the evidence of eye-witnesses opined that words
and acts of the accused demonstrating that at the time of commission of the said offences he
had not completely loosen his sense of understanding and he could explain his intended
action and logic. He held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 304 IPC.

On appeal, the E High Court also confirmed the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court
confirmed the conviction, and did not accept the defence of insanity,

While disposing the above case, the Supreme Court observed: We have given our careful
consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences adduced.

We are, however, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that being a
paranoid; the appellant must be presumed to have committed the said offences being seized
of sudden impulsive fits of passion due to which temporarily he was completely incapable
of understanding as to what he had been doing with what consequences.

Even if it is assumed that in the case of a paranoid, the ordinary test of lucid interval as
applicable in the cases of patients with unsound mind, is not to be applied, and a paranoid
is likely to be seized of sudden bouts of impulsive fits due to which temporarily he becomes
completely incapable of understanding the implication of his activities, and such sudden
bouts may also disappear within a very short time, in the instant case, it has been revealed
from the evidence adduced that at the time of commission of the said offences, the appellant
did not completely loose his sense of understanding.

When the deceased caught hold of him and told that he would be taken to the officers,
retorted that the deceased could do that only if he was alive then and so saying inflicted
khukri blows on him.

Such words and acts only demonstrate that at the time of commission of the offences, he
could explain his intended action with logic. Hence, it is not necessary to consider the
probabilities which may happen with a paranoid. In the facts of the case, it has been clearly
established that the accused was not incapable of understanding the implication of his acts.
Hence, no interference is called for in this appeal.”

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code carves out an exception that an act will not be an
offence, if done by a person, who at the time of doing the same, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong
or contrary to law.

Doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity

The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity was expounded by the
Apex Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of
Gujarat [1], wherein the Court stated that:

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the
offence with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests
on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.

There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he
committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the IPC: the accused may
rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence- oral, documentary or
circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no 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 he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by
the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or
more of the ingredients of the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused
or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one
or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case
the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of
proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.

Burden of Proof on the Accused to prove Insanity

In the case of Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand[2], the Supreme Court noted that the
accused in such cases has to only establish his defence on a preponderance of probability
after which the onus shall shift on the prosecution to
establish the inapplicability of the exception.

Standard test is of Legal Sanity and not Medical Sanity

In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram[3], the Court was of the view that the
standard of test to be applied shall be of legal insanity and not medical insanity. The Court
observed that once a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental
deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-
control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the
person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal
liability.

Crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established

In the case of Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[4], the Supreme Court held that the
crucial point for considering the defence of plea of unsoundness of mind has to be with
regard to the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed collated
from evidence of conduct which preceded, attended and followed the crime.

An essential observation in the aforesaid context was also made by the Supreme Court in
the case of Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P.[5], whereby the Court observed that if from the
materials placed on record a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with
regard to the mental condition of the accused at the time of the occurrence of crime, he
shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal.

Also read Supreme Court’s recent verdict on Burden of Proof in case of Plea of
Insanity here.

[1] (1964) 7 SCR 361

[2] (2011) 11 SCC 8

[3] (2012) 1 SCC 602

[4] (1970) 3 SCC 533

[5] (1990) 3 SCC 190

Case name: Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Date of Judgment: July 06, 2018

In this recent case, the Supreme Court discussed the law pertaining to plea of insanity under
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court in the case has also discussed some important
judgments highlighting the law.

In this recent case the Appellant assailed his conviction under Section 302 and 324 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), whereby the Trial Court rejected his defence that he was of
unsound mind, citing insufficient evidence relying on the evidence of Dr. Sagar Srikant
Chiddalwar, that the appellant was not mentally sick and fit to face trial.

In view of the facts and circumstances, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court stated
that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exception under section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code because of the preponderance of his medical condition at the time of
occurrence.

Section 84 of the IPC carves out an exception, that an act will not be an offence, if done by a
person, who at the time of doing the same, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

Other observations made by the Supreme Court in the case were:

Doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity– That the law
undoubtedly presumes that every person committing an offence is sane and liable for his
acts, though in specified circumstances it may be rebuttable.

While elaborating on the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity,
the Apex Court made reference to the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of
Gujarat[1], wherein the Supreme Court observed that there is a rebuttable presumption that
the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section
84 of the IPC: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence
oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that
rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

That the onus is on the accused, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is not as stringent as
on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused has only to
establish his defence on a preponderance of probability[2], after which the onus shall shift
on the prosecution to establish the inapplicability of the exception.

Test to be Legal Insanity and not Medical Insanity– That it is not that every and any plea
of unsoundness of mind that will suffice. The standard of test to be applied shall be of legal
insanity and not medical insanity[3]. The crucial point of time for considering the defence
plea of unsoundness of mind has to be with regard to the mental state of the accused at the
time the offence was committed collated from evidence of conduct which preceded[4].

That the appellant has been able to create sufficient doubt in our mind that he is entitled to
the benefit of the exception under Section 84 of the IPC because of the preponderance of
his medical condition at the time of occurrence, as revealed from the materials and
evidence on record.

In view of the facts and evidence adduced in the case, the Supreme Court was of the view that
by the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with
regard to the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, and he shall be
entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal.
The entire case can be accessed here.

[1] (1964) 7 SCR 361

[2] Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495

[3] State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602,

[4] Ratan Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 533,