That the case of the accused falls under sec 84

That the accused was harassed and beaten up for three years by her drunkard husband and
was also threatened by her husband that if she tells her in-laws or parent he would kill her
son. On one night her husband repeated same barbaric act and beat her till midnight. That
night she couldn’t sleep. She was thinking about all the pain she has received for 3 years.
That she wanted a normal and good life for her and her son. Lost in the thought of mental
agony and torture she has received she went to her husband’s room and attacked him on his
body. He died on the spot. After some time she again under the suffering of mental torture
attacked his son who died on the spot.

She sat there for hours waiting for the maid to come and when the maid came she didn’t
resist.

According to medical experts, every case of mental abnormality is insanity. According to law
not all persons who are medically insane are legally insane because amongst those who are
medically insane some are able to control some times and behave like normal people. He as a
normal man plans the crime; they sometimes can plan better and even execute it even with
more care. He knows what he is doing is wrong. We judge a man’s responsibility with
regards to his mens rea. Only those cases where because of insanity he does not know what
he is doing or he does not know what he is doing is a wrong, only they can be excused. So
amongst all the medically insane persons, only a few are legally insane. The law propounds a
different test from that in the medical field. The test in law is simply, whether because of his
insanity he is incapable of possessing mens rea. It is only where the insanity destroys the
cognitive faculty of mind, it is considered as insanity in law. The faculty of reasoning and
judgement is also considered. An insane person is not punished because he does not have any
guilty mind to commit the crime.

M’Naghten Rule:

In 1843 the law of insanity was more properly formulated by the House of Lords in the
historic case of R v. M’Naghten.1

Principles Laid Down In Mc’naghten Case:

1. Every person is presumed to be sane, until the contrary is established.

2. To establish the defence of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of
committing the crime, the person was so insane as not to know the 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.

3. The test of wrongfulness f the act is in the power to distinguish between right and
wrong, not in the abstract or in general, but in regard to the particular act committed.

1
(1843) 10 Cl. & F.200
This shows that she may know the nature of act but was in no control. The mental torture for
3 years straight destroyed the cognitive faculty of her mind, to such an extent that she is
incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what she is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

Irresistible impulse, mental agitation, annoyance and fury all merely indicate loss of control
and not indicative of soundness of mind. Every minor mental aberration is not insanity and
the circumstances indicating a mere probability of legal insanity cannot however be sufficient
to discharge the onus of the accused to establish the plea of insanity. Here the victim actually
becomes a tool in the hands of the disease. This is called cognitive insanity.

In Madhulkar G.Nigade v. State of Maharastra,2 the High Court of Bombay held that in
order to get the benefit of section 84 of Indian Penal Code, it has to be brought on record that
at the time when the said offence was committed, the accused was mentally not fit to
understand the consequences of his action and was of unsound mind at the time.

The said case hence falls under the category of insanity.

2
AIR 1991 SC 207.