DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

ACADEMIC SESSION:

2019 – 2020

SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE-I

PROJECT ON THE TOPIC:

“Insanity as a defence under sec.84 of IPC”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

ASSISSTANT PROFESSOR, ENROL.NO.: 170101170

LAW B.A.LL.B (Hons.), SEM IV

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide for his
exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement to give shape to this project.
The blessing, help and guidance given by his time to time shall carry me a long way in the
journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my respected seniors who
shared their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in
completing the task through various stages.

Last but not the least, I thank the almighty, my mother, brother and friends for their constant
encouragement without which this assignment would not have been possible.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents

INSANITY .................................................................................................... 4

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 84 .......................................... 5

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICAL AND LEGAL INSANITY- ........... 6

EVERY FORM OF INSANITY IS NOT EXEMPTED ................................ 8

POSITION IN OTHER COUNTRIES: ....................................................... 11

RELEVANT CASE LAWS ......................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION: LEGAL AND MEDICAL INSANITY ............................ 16

3
 ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 84
Main ingredients of section 84 is “unsoundness of mind”, “incapable of knowing the nature
of the act” and “the act was wrong”. The crucial point of time of such incapability due to
unsoundness of mind is the time when he committed the offence. His insanity prior or
subsequent to the commission of the offence is not in itself adequate to absolve him from the
criminal liability.1

1. Unsoundness of mind: It means a state in which an accused is incapable of knowing the

nature of the act or that he is incapable of knowing that he is doing wrong or contrary to law.
The insanity, for sec 84 should be of such a nature that it completely impairs the cognitive
faculty of the mind, to such an extent that he is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or
what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. The nature and extent of the unsoundness of the
mind required being such as would make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the
act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law.2

2. Incapable of knowing the nature of the act: A person can be said incapable of knowing
the nature of the act if he, at the time of doing it, was ignorant of the physical characters of
the act. It must be clearly proved that at the time of committing of the act, the party accused
was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the
nature of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what
was wrong. If he did know it, he is responsible. A plea of insanity at the time of trial will not
avail the accused. 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. If at that moment a
man is found to be labouring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of the
act he was doing or that, even if he knew it, he did not know it was either wrong or contrary
to law, then this section must be applied. In other words, to get the benefit of sec 84 of IPC, it
must be shown that at the time of the commission of the act the accused by reason of
unsoundness of mind was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act or that the act was
either morally wrong or contrary to law for determining this his state of mind before and after
the commission of the offence is more relevant. A lucid interval6 of an insane person is not
merely a cessation of the violent symptoms

1
Supra 1.
2
www.lawyersclubindia.com.

4
of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person
soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect
restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition . So, if there is such a restoration,
the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a
legal act; merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient.3

3. Act was wrong: If a person does an act at the time of doing it, by reason of insanity, does
not know that the act is either wrong or contrary to law, he would be protected under sec84
even though he knew the nature of the act. The law recognizes nothing but the incapacity to
realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man’s mind or his faculties of
ratiocination are sufficiently clear to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be
presumed to intend the consequences of the act and presumes that where a man’s mind or his
faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently clear to apprehend what he is doing, he must always
be presumed to intend the consequences of the action he takes.4 KINDS OF INSANITY

1. Insanity from birth (DEMENTIA NATURALIS)

2. Insanity after birth (DEMENTIA ADVENTITIA)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICAL AND LEGAL

INSANITY-
Medical insanity and legal insanity are different from each other. Medical insanity is solely
dependent on medical grounds while legal insanity depends on the factors required to be
proved in a court of a law to enable the accused to be acquitted of the charge. In other words,
legal insanity furnishes a good ground of defence from criminal liability while medical
insanity does not. In order to establish the legal insanity the necessary elements as provided
must be proved. If there are sufficient grounds to hold that a person is suffering from insanity,
it is a case of medical insanity. It is to be proved with the help of medical evidence.5

Legal insanity, means that a person has to prove that at the time of commission of crime with
which the accused is charged because of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of
his act or that he is doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Medically, a person may

3
Supra 1
4
Supra 1
5
"Criminal law", from "S N Mishra", Central Law Publication, 17th edition, pg 335.

5
be proved sane or insane, as the case may be, but for legal insanity he have to prove the
requirements of the law under this section.6

INSANE STATE OF MINDS:

 Hallucination- It is a state of mind where a person may be perfectly sane in respect of

everything, but may be under a delusion in respect of one particular idea. The Madras
and the Bombay High Courts have held that a person who is not insane but is merely
suffering from some kind of obsession or hallucination, cannot invoke sec 84 in his
favor.
 Somnambulism- It is the unconscious state known as walking in sleep and if proved,
will constructive unsoundness of mind and the accused will get the benefit under sec
84 of IPC.
 Insanity as a result of smoking ganja or heavy intoxication- When insanity is
caused by excessive drinking even involuntary or by smoking ganja or other drugs,
such insanity will also amount to unsoundness of mind, if it makes a person incapable
of understanding what he is doing or that he is doing is something wrong or illegal.7
 Irresistible Impulse, Mental Agitation, Annoyance and Fury: 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.
 Lack of Motive or A Trifle Matter: The absence of a strong and adequate motive to
commit such a serious offence like murder is not by itself a proof of insanity. But the
absence of a motive may be taken into consideration along with other circumstances
of a case to determine the question of sanity or otherwise of the accused. The fact that
the accused caused the death of a person over a trifling matter will not by itself
warrant a conclusion that he was insane, when no plea of insanity was taken before
the trial court, nor was nay material produced to establish the ground of insanity.
 Excessive or Unusual Violence: The brutality or the ferociousness of the act by itself
cannot lead to the conclusion of insanity. Crime cannot be excused by its own

6
Supra 1
7
Supra 1

6
 atrocity. In order to determine whether the conduct of the accused was an insane act,
one must look beyond or outside the act or crime itself for evidence as to how much
the accused acted with knowledge.
 Insanity Under Criminal Procedure Code: Under the Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 unsoundness of mind comes under section 464 and 465, which states that
when an issue as to unsoundness of mind of an accused person is raised the court is
bound to enquire it begins to record evidence.
 It says that when a magistrate while conducting an inquiry feels that the person is of
unsound mind and consequently, incapable of making his defence, he may ask a
medical officer to examine the person and postpone the trial of the case.

EVERY FORM OF INSANITY IS NOT EXEMPTED

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the legal test of responsibility as distinguished
from the medical test. It may be observed that the absence of will arises not only from the
absence of maturity of understanding but also from a morbid condition of mind. This morbid
condition of the mind, which affords an exemption from criminal responsibility, differs in the
medical and legal point of view. According to medical science insanity is another name for
mental abnormality due to various causes and existing in various degrees. Even an
uncontrollable impulse driving a man to kill or wound comes within its scope. The legal
conception of insanity differs considerably from the medical conception. It is not every form
of insanity or madness that is recognised by law as a sufficient excuse. The most elaborate
and authoritative exposition of the English Common Law of Insanity was embodied in the
answers of 15 judges given in June 1843 to the questions put to them by the lords in
consequences of the popular alarm as provoked by the acquittal of Daniel McNaughten. The
learned judges unanimously laid down that “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 laboring under
such disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, of he
did not know it, that he did not know he was doing, of he did not know it, that he did not
know he was doing what was wrong”8.

A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned
with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. Where during the investigation previous
history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to

8
Daniel Me Naughten’s case (1843) 10 Clark & fmnelly 2008ER, 718.

7
a medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, creates
a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given.

The crucial point of time, for deciding whether the benefit of this section could be given or
not, is material time when the offence takes place. If at that moment a man is found to be
laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of the act he was doing or
that, even if he knew it, he did not know it was either wrong or contrary to law then this must
be applied. In coming to the 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 law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the
act and presumes that where a man’s mind or his faculties or ratiocination are sufficiently
clear to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequences
of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for crime, howsoever, atrocious it may be
cannot, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity bring the case within this section.
Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of
a psychopath affords no protection under section 84 I.P.C. behaviour, antecedent, attendant
and subsequent to the event may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at
the time of the event, but not that remote in time.

Every person who is thus mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal O')
responsibility9 The mere fact

(i) that an accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite alright10

(ii) That the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect
weak and had affected his emotions and will11

(iii) That he was liable to recurring fits at short intervals12

9
Barelal us State ofM.P.A.I.R. 1960 MP 102.

10
Abdul Rashid V. Emperor AIR 1927 Lah 567.

11
Ram Adhin V. Emperor (1932) Gr. L.J. 163 at 166.

12
Lakshmi V. State AIR 1959 All 534.

8
(iv) That he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his
behaviour26

(v) That he committed certain unusual acts in the past such as snatching kuqqas from people
or hurling brick-bats and giving beating to his uncle

(vi) That he used to quarrel with his wife on certain occasions and used to lock her up inside
the house whenever he used to go to work

(vii) That his behaviour was queer,27 have not been held to be sufficient to attract the
application of section 84 I.P.C

PRESUMPTION OF SANITY
The plea of insanity is a defence against criminal responsibility. It must, therefore be
established by the defence. The courts will presume that every person is sane and in full
control of all his facilities, until the contrary is proved. As per the sec 115 of Indian Evidence
Act 1872, “when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions or proviso contained in
any other part of the same code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the court
shall presume the absence of such circumstances.” For e.g.. ‘A’ accused of murder, alleges
that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of
proof is on ‘A’. This illustration clearly shows that if any accused puts forth a plea of
insanity, then it is for him to establish the same in court. Until such proof, the court shall
presume that the accused is sane.13

Role of Psychiatrist: A standard evaluation procedure of all patients who plead insanity
defence is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate that till date, no such standardized
procedures exist in our country. Psychiatrists are often called for conducting mental health
evaluations and treatment. Apart from treatment, courts may also request for various
certifications. This includes: 1. Certifying the presence or absence of psychiatric illness if the
defendant claims for an insanity plea (defendant's mental status when the alleged offense took
place);

2.Assessment of fitness to stand trial in cases where mental illness incapacitates cognitive,
emotional and behavioral faculties of an individual causing serious impact on the ability to
defend the case (defendant's present mental status and his competence during adjudication).
13
Supra 1.

9
Psychiatrist should consider inpatient admission for a comprehensive evaluation of the
defendant. It is the duty of the psychiatrist to educate the court, clarify psychiatric issues,
provide honest and objective opinions based on factual data and sound reasoning.14

POSITION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Insanity under American Law: In regards to defence of insanity in the United States of
America, Underhill's Criminal Evidence has the following to say:

Insanity is everywhere a defence to a charge of crime, for without a sound mind there can be
no criminal intent. The existence, character and extent of insanity are ordinarily questions of
the fact for the jury, and a defendant who has offered proof of his insanity is entitled to an
instruction that he may be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The authorities are not agreed on the legal test for determining insanity. Most of the states
have adopted the right and wrong test, as set forth by the House of Lords in the leading case
of McNaughten in 1843.

Insanity under The English Law:

The English law is also based on the Mc'Nachten rule. The English law on insanity is thus:

“where it can be shown that a person at the time of his committing or omitting an act, the
commission or omission of which would otherwise be criminal, was labouring under such a
defect of reason, from the disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act
or omission, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong, then such a person is not in
law responsible for his act.

Insanity under Swiss Law

Section. 10 of the Swiss Penal Code states that ‘any person suffering from a mental disease,
idiocy or serious impairment of his mental faculties, who at the time of committing the act is
incapable of appreciating the unlawful nature of his act or acting in accordance with the
appreciation may not be punished'.

Insanity under the Law of France:

14
Suresh Bada Math, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, Sydney Moirangthem, Insanity defense: Past, present,
and future, 37 (4), Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine,381

10
Penal Code of France, art. 64 provides that ‘there is no crime or offence when the accused
was in state of madness at the time of the act or in the event of his having been compelled by
a force which he was not able to resist'.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

DAYABHAI CHHAGABNHAI THAKKAR 15

FACTS:

This was the leading case of insanity. The accused was convicted for murder of his wife. One
night while the two were sleeping in their room as usual, the neighbors were awakened on
hearing her cries that she was being killed. They found the door of the room bolted from
inside and called upon the accused to open it. When he opened the room, they found his wife
dead with as many as 44 knife injuries on her body.16

JUDGEMENT:

In this case the Supreme Court held that in determining whether the accused has established
that his case comes within the purview of section 84, the court has to consider the
circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime At the trial the plea of
insanity was rejected in view of the fact that in the statements made to the police immediately
after the incident, there was no indication whatsoever that they had found his conduct on
emerging from the room to be that of a person who had lost his sanity.17

The session judge accordingly convicted the accused and on appeal the High court confirmed
the conviction. Rejecting the defence of insanity and dismissing the appeal, Supreme Court
held that the evidence on record was not sufficient even to throw a reasonable doubt that the
act might have been committed when the accused was under a fit of insanity. The court said it
is that only that unsoundness of mind which materially impairs the cognitive faculty of the
mind can constitute a ground for exemption from criminal liability.18

STATE OF MP V. AHAMDULLAH

Subject:

15
AIR 1563, 1964 SCR (7) 361.
16
Supra 1
17
Supra 1.
18
Supra 1

11
The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time,
such as is described by sec 84, IP code lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this
exemption.

Facts:

In this case the accused had murdered his mother in law to whom he bore ill-will in
connection with his divorce. It was proved that he did the act at night having got into the
house by scaling over a wall with the aid of a torch light and entered the room where the
deceased was sleeping. All this showed that the crime was committed not in a sudden mood
of insanity, but one that was preceded by careful planning and exhibiting cool calculation in
execution and directed against a person who was considered to be his enemy. Then again,
there was a mood of exultation which the accused exhibited after he had put out her life.

Judgement:

In these circumstances the Supreme Court rejecting his plea of insanity, convicted the
accused of the offence of murder (setting aside the acquittals of both the session court and the
high court), and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Ayyangar J said thus: In the normal case, the proper punishment for the heinous and
premeditated crime committed with human brutality would have been a sentence of death.
But taking into the account the fact that the accused has been acquitted by the session's judge,
an order which has been affirmed by the high court – we consider that the ends of justice
would be met if we sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life.

RATANLAL V. STATE OF MP

The appellant on 22 January 1965, set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of Nemichand. On
being asked why he did it, the accused said; ‘I burnt it; do whatever you want'. The accused
was arrested on 23 January 1965. He was referred to a mental hospital. The psychiatrist of the
hospital reported that the accused remained silent, was a case of maniac depressive psychosis,
and needs treatment. The report declared the accused to be a lunatic in terms of the Indian
Lunatic Act, 1912The issue before the courts was whether insanity might be used as defence
against a charge of mischief by fire with intent to cause damage under the IPC, s. 435. The
crucial point in this case was whether unsound mind may be established at the time of
commission of the act. The Supreme Court held that the person was insane and acquitted him.

12
SANT BIR V. STATE OF BIHAR : It is not possible as to why the state government should
have insisted before releasing the petitioner from the jail when the petitioner was found to be
completely recovered and completely fit for discharge and there was absolutely no warrant or
justification in law to detain him.

The result was that the petitioner continued to rot in jail for a further period of ten years,
though he was fully recovered and there was no reason or justification to continue his
detention in the jail. It is shocking that a perfectly sane person should have been incarcerated
within the walls of the prison for almost 16 years without any justification in law whatsoever.

Held: The Supreme Court further observed that it should be a matter of shame for the society
as well as the administration to detain a person in jail for over 16 years without authority of
law.

TUKAPPA TAMANNA LINGARDI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

In a Bombay case a woman, the sister of the accused reported at the police station that he had
come to banda weekly bazaar on that day, which was Monday, for selling potatoes and
onions and further, that one person by the name ajjappa (victim) had quarrelled with her over
the purchase of goods. The ASI of police who was on duty could not follow the language of
the woman who was accompanied by the accused, the ASI sent a constable to bring the PS.,
the person complained against by the woman. But in the presence of the said constable
suddenly the accused attacked the deceased and beheaded him. If transpired in the evidence
that he accused had the fits of lunacy and, while in such fits, he used to say that a tiger was
coming to eat him or to kill him. He used to hear the voice of the tiger and used to refuse to
take his food. The accused used to have sleepless nights and if at all he was asleep, he used to
get up and run away under the stress of fear from the tiger. On the date of the offence, the
appellant was wandering in the forest of a heavy sickle (pal koyta) expecting a tiger to come.
After a thorough analysis of the evidence and circumstances, the high court held that the
accused was entitled to the protection of section 84, IPC.

BAIJANTI V. STATE

The accused was suffering from TB and stomach pain for the last sometimes and one day
along with her infant jumped into the well in which incident the child lost her life but the lady
accused was taken out alive. On being prosecuted u/s 302 she pleaded insanity but the court
refused as she had no kind of mental ailment at the time of committing the crime. However,

13
she was said to have committed the act with the knowledge that the death was likely to be
caused thereby. Hence her conviction was altered from u/s. 302 to one u/s 304 for committing
the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

SRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The circumstances that stand proved in the case are:

The appellant had a family history – his after her was suffering from psychiatric illness. The
cause of ailment was not known – but heredity plays a part. The appellant was also being
treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 and was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia. Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December,
1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to the hospital. The appellant was
also under regular treatment for the mental ailment. The And the fact of the killing in day
light shows that no attempt to hide or run away was made.

The plea of insanity was thus proved. Hence the conviction and sentence of the appellant
cannot be sustained.

BABASAHEB THOMBRE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

In the present case the accused was found guilty of committing murder of his wife. He was
convicted for committing offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian penal code and
is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Additional Session's Judge. The post
mortem report was prepared by an autopsy surgeon who stated that the cause of the death of
the wife of the accused was a shock due to the head injury with laceration of the brain.

The accused pleaded insanity as a defence and stated that he was suffering from
schizophrenia. But the evidence proved that he was not suffering from any kind of mental
illness and was in full control of all his cognitive faculties prior to, at the time and after the
commission of the offence.

The appeal was thus dismissed in the higher court and the accused was convicted for murder.

14