INSANITY DEFENCE – THE GENERAL

EXCEPTION OR AN EASY ESCAPE FOR

CRIMINALS

Focal Theme: Insanity Defence

Sub – theme: A General Defence to Save an Innocent or Escape for

Criminals

Title: Insanity Defence – The General Exception or an Easy Escape for

Criminals

1|Page
 Table of contents

1. Table of contents …………………………………………………2

2. Abstract …………………………………………………………. 3
3. Introduction to the insanity defence…………………………… 4
a. General principles as to the crime…………………….........4-5
b. History of insanity defence – the M’ Naghten Rule ………5-7
4. Indian law on the defence of insanity…………………………8-12
a. Ingredients of section 84…………………………………...8-10
b. Medical examination of the accused…………………….….10
c. Legal insanity………………………………………………...11
d. Difference between legal and medical insanity………….11-12
e. Types of insanity……………………………………………...12
5. Proof of insanity………………………………………………….13
6. Persons of unsound mind …………………………………….14-16
a. Idiot, lunatic and Non Compos Mentis…………………….15
b. Disease of mind……………………………………………15-16
c. Insanity brought on by drunkenness………………………..16
7. Irresistible impulse……………………………………………17-18
8. Durham rule………………………………………………………19
9. Positive and negative aspects of insanity defence………………20
10. Case laws…………………………………………………………..21
11. Conclusion………………………………………………………...22
12. Bibliography………………..…………………………………….23
13. References…………………………………………………………23

2|Page
 ABSTRACT

This paper aims at understanding the one of the general defences which is
the insanity defence under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
general exception as envisaged in the Code aims at safeguarding the interest
of such a person of unsound mind, mentally unfit, idiot or lunatic. But on
the contrary, such defence is a lot many times used as an escape by the
criminals and justice cannot be served to the aggrieved party or the victims.
This paper aims at the findings that how a criminal lawyer sometimes uses
this defence to save his client and how the insanity of a sane person is
proved in the court of law. The medical examinations that prove the insanity
of the defendant and the testimony of the witnesses play a vital role in
proving to insanity of the sane. The paper also states the law of the land in
this context and the landmark judgements that need the utmost consideration
to understand the whole concept.

Key words: insanity defence, IPC, general exception, unsoundness of mind,

culpability, Mc-Naughton Rule, Durham’s rule, irresistible impulse.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION TO INSANITY DEFENCE

Insanity is one of the unfavourable assortments of the criminal law. It is a

war between the legal and medical profession. As a defence it induces a
deduction from the scarce evidence. Apparently, it is a question of fact, not
gauged by inflexible legal test. The insanity defence is primarily used in the
criminal prosecution as it is based on the practical or unseen assumption that
during the time of any sort of major crime, the defendant was suffering form
severe mental disorder and was unfit for appreciating the nature of the crime
and comparing the right and wrong behaviour. The burden of proof lies on
the defendant that he is mentally unfit by “preponderance of the evidence”
which is similar to a civil case. Thence, the defence when used and accepted
by the court of law, releases the defendant making them not legally
accountable.

The insanity defence is used in the court of law as an excuse rather being a
justification of the facts and the crime. The plea of insanity can be defined
as a defence that a defendant admits the action, but asserts a lack of
culpability based on mental illness. So, in the Indian Legal System, it is an
instrument in the criminal law to save an alleged from accountability of a
crime.

General rule as to the crime

In order to hold a person legally accountable for a crime, a criminal intent is

necessary and therefore, capacity of the wrong-doer to form a criminal
intent is a relevant consideration in determining the criminal liability of that
person. A person may lack criminal intent because of immaturity of age or
defect in the mental faculty. When such defect is caused by some disease of
mind, a person is said to be insane. Thence, if a person is under natural
disability of distinguishing between good and evil, as infants under the age

4|Page
of discretion, idiots and lunatics, are not punishable by any criminal
prosecution whatsoever.1

Stephen in his Digest of Criminal Law states2 - No act is a crime if the

person who does it, is at the same time when it is done prevented either by
defective mental power or by any disease affecting his mind either from
knowing the nature and quality of the act, or from knowing that the act is
wrong.

History of the insanity defence – the M’ Naghten Rule

the law related to the insanity defence has been a part of man – made laws
since ancient Greece and Rome. Such provision was first recorded in 1581
English legal treaties wherein, if a lunatic, at the time of his lunacy, kills
someone, he cannot be held accountable.

As time passed by and with all the developments in the jurisprudence, the
British courts in the 18th Century came up with the “Wild Beast” test by
virtue of which a defendant was not to be convicted if he/she had an
understanding of an infant or a wild beast.3 The test was the first formal
enactment which led to the basis for Law of Insanity, giving the advent of
Insanity Defence. Along with this, various other tests were also deduced in
order to check the legal insanity of a person. These tests include the Insane
Delusion test4 and the Good and Evil test5, wherein it was to be seen that the
person the person who had committed some crime has the ability to discern
between good and the evil. These three tests were the basis of early laws
relating to Insanity Defence and laid the foundation for the landmark M’
Naghten Test decided in 1843.

1
Hawkins, 1 Haw P.C. 1
2
Art. U. p. 5
3
R. v. Arnold. 1724, 16 St.Tr.695
4
Hadfield Case. 1800, 27 St.Tr.128
5
Bowler’s case. 1812, 1 Collinson Lunacy 673

5|Page
 Daniel M’ Naghten, a Scotsman was tried for the murder of Edmond
Drummond, Private Secretary of Sir Robert Peel, the then Prime Minister.
M’ Naghten was under an insane delusion that Sir Robert Peel had injured
him. Mistaking Drummond for Sir Robert Peel, he shot and killed him. The
insanity defence was pleaded by the accused and the medical evidence
produced showed that he was labouring under a morbid delusion because of
which he lost his power of control. The accused was acquitted on the ground
of insanity but, his acquittal much sensation and became the subject – matter
of debate in the House of Lords. The matter was then referred to a fifteen-
judge bench by the House of Lords, who were called upon to lay down the
law relating to criminal responsibility in case of lunacy. The judges were
asked to answer the questions posed to them. These questions and answers
are known as the M’ Naghten Rule, which form the basis of the modern law
on insanity.6

From the answers given by the judges in the M’ Naghten Case, the
following principles can be deduced; firstly, every man is presumed to be
sane and to possess sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his
crimes, until contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court.
Secondly, in order to establish the defence of insanity, it must be clearly
shown that at the time of committing the offence, the accused was labouring
under such a defect of reason from disease of mind that he was not aware of
the nature and quality of the act he was doing or the act which he was doing
was wrong. Thirdly, if the accused was conscious that the act, he did was
one which he ought not to do and if that act was at the same time contrary to
the law, he would be punishable.

Fourthly, a medical witness who has not seen the accused previous to the
trial should not be asked his opinion whether on evidence he thinks that the
accused was insane. And lastly, where the criminal act is committed by a
6
R v. McNaughton, (1843) 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722

6|Page
man under some insane delusion as to the surrounding facts, which conceals
from him the true nature of the act he is doing, he will be under the same
degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined
them to be.

The whole case of M’ Naghten led to the promulgation of the Lunacy Act of
1845. Through the act a Lunacy Commission was established, which was
charged with the responsibility of transfer of people from prison to the
asylums regulated under the act.

In the opinion of Huda, these answers, although they do not amount to

judicial decisions, are still regarded as authoritative expositions of the law
relating to insanity.7

The M’ Naghten Rule became a legendary precedent for the law concerning
the defence of insanity. In India, under the IPC, section 84 – act of a person
of unsound mind, is solely based on the M’ Naghten Rule.

Indian law on the defence of insanity

7
S. Huda; The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India. p. 286

7|Page
In India, the insanity defence is contained in section 84 of the Penal Code. It
is based on the two propositions drawn from the second and third question-
answer in the M’ Naghten Rule. The section lays down the test of
accountability in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. The provision
contained in section 84 states that – 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 of law.8

Ingredients of section 84

Even though the defence is used as an excuse mostly, but there are certain
ingredients that need to be fulfilled in order to get the benefit of this
defence. They are; firstly, the act must be done by a person of unsound
mind; secondly, such person must be incapable of knowing the nature of the
act, or that the act was contrary to law, or that the act was wrong; thirdly,
such incapacity must be by reason of unsoundness of mind of the offender;
and lastly the incapacity of the nature so stated in second point must exist at
the time of doing the act, constituting the offence.

A man who is by reason of mental disease is prevented from controlling his

own conduct and a man who is deprived of the power of passing a rational
judgement on the moral character of the act he meant to do, is entitled to the
benefit of section 84, IPC.9

The accused is not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong,
even though he did not have the knowledge that it was contrary to law or the
vice versa. The unsoundness of mind must exist at the time of committing
the offence and the onus to prove such unsoundness of mind is on the
accused. But the accused need not prove affirmatively beyond any

8
Section 84 IPC
9
Hakik Shah, (1887) P.R. No. 42 of 1887

8|Page
reasonable doubt that he was of unsound mind and by the reason of such
mental illness he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act.10

The law presumes that every person of the age of discretion is sane unless
the contrary is proved. Where a lunatic had articulated intervals, the law
presumes the offence to have been committed during such intervals unless it
is proved to have been committed during irrationalities.

Thence, it was held in the case of CHHAGAN v. STATE11, that it would be

most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments merely
resultant from the character of crime. A somewhat queer behaviour on the
part of the accused preceding the commission of crime does not establish
that the accused would be called non combos mentis meaning thereby, not
sane.

In order to establish legal insanity, it is necessary to prove that the

intellectual faculties of the person are such that he does not know what he
has done or what will follow his act. In re BALAGOPAL12, the accused was
living very amicably with his wife and behaved in a welcoming manner
towards her. He murdered her and his son with a knife but no motive could
be suggested. The medical opinion was also definite about the accused not
being in a position to understand the nature of the act, thence, the plea of
insanity was upheld by the court.

It was held in SUDHIR CHAND BISWAS v. STATE13, that in a murder

case insanity must be recognised as an exception to the criminal liability
under section 84 must be such as to disable the accused from knowing the
nature of the act when he committed such criminal act. If he knew the nature

10
Surju Marande v. state of Bihar, 1977 Cri. L.J. 1765
11
1976 cri. L.J. 671
12
1976 Cri. L.J. 1978
13
1987 Cri. L.J. 863 (CAL.)

9|Page
of the crime at the time of committing it, he must be held guilty for such
crime.

Mere eccentricity or bizarre behaviour of the accused is not enough to

establish his unsoundness of mind. Moreover, it is only legal insanity that
furnishes the ground of exemption from the criminal liability. In order to
constitute legal insanity, the unsoundness of mind must be such as to make
the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing
any act divergent to law.

It is precisely this state of mind at the time of offence neither ante nor post
offence which is only material for the purpose of determining whether the
accused was of unsound mind. Insanity must exist at the time of commission
of the offence.

Medical examination of the accused

It was held in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. GOVIND

MHATARBA SHINDE14, that if the plea of insanity is raised by the
accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to subject the accused to medical
examination. This is important because if it is revealed during the course of
investigation that the accused was suffering form mental illness, the
prosecution is further duty bound to place all the evidences before the court,
to show that the accused was in a proper state of mind when he committed
the alleged offence.

This is to rule out the plea of insanity that may likely be raised at the trial.
The failure of the prosecution to do so creates serious infirmity, it may
entitle the accused to seek benefit of doubt.

Legal insanity

14
(2010) III Cr. L.J. 3586 (Bom.)

10 | P a g e
In order to get the protection of section 84 the accused has to establish the
existence of what is known as legal insanity. The rule is to establish a
defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time
of committing of the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and gravity of
the act he was doing or if he did know it that he did not know he was doing
what was wrong15

It was held in TABU CHETIA v. STATE OF ASSAM16 , that unsoundness

of mind as contemplated by section 84 of the Penal Code is legal insanity
which means the state of mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing
the nature of his act or that he is incompetent of knowing that he is ding
what is either wrong or contrary to law. In other words, his cognitive
faculties are such that he does not know what he has done or what will
follow his act.

Difference between legal and medical insanity

Medical insanity and legal insanity are two different phenomena. Medical
insanity is solely dependent on medical grounds, on the other hand, legal
insanity depends on the factors required to be proved in a court of law to
enable the accused to be acquitted of the charge.

In other words, legal insanity furnishes good ground of defence from

criminal liability whereas medical insanity does not. The existence of
medical insanity is to be proved with the help of medical evidence, but on
the contrary, legal insanity means that the defence must prove that at the
time of commission of the alleged crime, the accused was suffering from
mental illness and was not capable of understanding the nature and gravity
of offence, along with that, because of such unsoundness of mind, he was
unable to differentiate between right and wrong or what is contrary to law.
15
SOMESHWAR BORA v. STATE OF ASSAM, 1981 Cri. L.J. (N.O.C.) 51 (Gauhati)
16
1976 Cri. L.J. 1416 (Gau.)

11 | P a g e
Lastly, medically a person may be certified as sane or insane as the case
may be, but legally he will be held insane only if he successfully proves the
requirements of the law under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which
will entitle him to be acquitted of the charge of the offence alleged.

Types of insanity

Insanity can be classified into temporary and permanent insanity.

A. Temporary Insanity: it is a condition where a person is insane only

periodically or for a specific point of time. It includes; depression,
anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive
behaviours. The defences available in such a case are - ‘not guilty
because insane’ and the other one is ‘guilty but cannot be tried
because insane.’ The burden of proof is an issue in case of temporary
insanity by reason that the examination conducted by the psychiatrist
had to be after the fact, therefore, the only evidence must be the
conduct of the accused instantly before or after the crime.
B. Permanent Insanity: it is a condition where a person is persisting a
mental illness uninterruptedly. It can be proved from past records
and events that had occurred repeatedly proving that the person is
permanently insane and is incapable of understanding the nature and
gravity of any situation.

Proof of Insanity

12 | P a g e
 where insanity is pleaded as a defence against a crime the conduct of the
accused preceding to the crime complained of as well as succeeding the
crime and also during the committing of that crime, all call for closure
scrutiny.

Where is a murder case, it is alleged that the accused was suffering from
insanity, such unsoundness or mind or insanity must be proved and it should
be proved at such crucial point of time when the crime is actually committed
and the burden of proving it is on the accused.

It is sufficient if his case is established from the circumstances which

preceded, attended and followed the crime. The defence of insanity cannot
be accepted upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime.
The mere absence of proof of motive would not by itself show that a person
was insane although it could be a factor to be taken into consideration along
with other circumstances while judging such a plea.17

The insanity of the accused must be a legal insanity as every insanity

recognised in the medical science is not legal insanity. Thus, in a defence of
insanity the conduct of the accused before, during and after the conduct
should be examined clearly.18

Persons of unsound mind

17
Mittu Khodia v. State of Orissa, 1983 Cri. L.J. 1385 (Orissa)
18
Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri. L.J. 196 (BOM.)

13 | P a g e
The word unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the code. To
Stephen it is equivalent to insanity which means the state of mind in which
one or more functions of feeling, knowing, emotion and willing to perform
in an abnormal manner or is not performed at all by reason of some disease
of the brain or the nervous system.19 Insanity includes lunacy, mental
derangements, mental disorder, madness and so on.

Thus, the expression “unsoundness of mind” is a wide connotation used in

the section 84 of the Penal Code but, it does not embrace all types of
insanity known to the medical science, but only such varieties as render a
person incapable of knowing 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.

There are numerous degrees of insanity. In order to be an excuse insanity

must reach that degree which is described in the latter part of section 84.
The penal code uses the phrase “unsoundness of mind” and not the word
“insanity” as the use of the more comprehensive term has the advantage of
doing away with the necessity of defining “insanity”. Mere unsoundness of
mind is not a defence, it must be such as affects the judgement of a person
or in other words, when it renders the sufferer incapable of knowing the
nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

In the case of SIDDHAPAL KAMALA YADAV v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA20, in case of murder when defence of insanity is claimed
by the accused the onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused.
But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed,
it is only the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to medical
examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done,
it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt
has to be given to the accused.
19
Stephen History of Criminal Law, Vol. II, p. 130
20
(2009) I Cri. L.J. 373 (S.C.)

14 | P a g e
The onus however, has to be discouraged by producing evidence as to the
conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the
time or immediately afterwards, also by the evidence of his mental
condition and other relevant factors. The burden of proof however, is not so
onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed
the act with which he is charged. The burden on the accused is no higher
than that resisting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding.

Idiot, Lunatic and Non Compos Mentis

A person who is of non-sane memory from his birth by a perpetual

infirmity, without lucid intervals is said to be an idiot. An idiot is also one
who cannot count twenty or tell the days of the week or who does not know
his father or mother or the like.21

A person who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain period and

vicissitudes, having intervals of reason is known to be a lunatic, but
madness is permanent.22 Lunacy and madness are said to be acquired
insanity and idiocy as natural insanity.

A person made non compos mentis by illness is exempted from criminal

liability, in cases of such acts which are committed while under the
influence of his mental disorder.23

Disease of mind

The accused must firstly show that he was suffering from a disease of the
mind when he did the prohibited act. Mere difficulty in exercising self-
control due to psychopathy which is liable to be aggravated by the
consumption of alcohol will not suffice.24 Any mental disorder which has
manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is disease of the mind,
21
Archbold 35th Edn. Pp.31-32
22
Russel 12th Edn. Vol.1 p.103; 1 Hale P.C. 31
23
1 Hale P.C. 30
24
A.G. for Northern Ireland, (1963) A.C. 349

15 | P a g e
however, the question whether a disease is a “disease of mind” within the
M’ Naghten Rules is to be decided by the Hon’ble Court.

Secondly, the accused must show that he was suffering from a defect reason
due to disease of mind, which must be more than a momentary confusion
and amount to a complete deprivation of the reasoning power.25 The disease
of mind must affect his power of reasoning to such an extent that it renders
him insane for the medical purposes.

Thirdly, the defect of a reason so caused must affect legal responsibility,

i.e., it must affect a person’s capacity to appreciate what he was doing and
whether it was unlawful.26 In other words, it must affect his capacity to
know the nature of the act or to distinguish between right and wrong.

Fourthly, the defect of reason from ailment of the mind must exist at the
time of commission of the offence.

Insanity brought on by drunkenness

Drunkenness is no excuse but delirium tremens, meaning thereby a

psychotic condition typical of withdrawal in chronic alcoholics involving
hallucinations etc., is caused by drinking from drunkenness, if it produces
such a degree of madness, even for a time, as to render a person incapable of
distinguishing right from wrong, afforded a ground of excuse from criminal
responsibility.27 Insanity created by habitual drunkenness, whether
permanent or intermittent, is same as insanity produced by any other cause.

Irresistible Impulse

Until and unless the act is voluntary, no act can be a crime. Therefore, sane
or insane, an agent is not responsible for the acts done by him against his

25
Clarke, (1972) 1 All E.R. 219
26
Rivett, (1950) 34 Cr. App. Rep. 87
27
Davis, (1881) 14 Cox 563

16 | P a g e
own will. The law of crime recognises only physical compulsion and not
moral compulsion. In the case of a sane person, it is conclusive presumption
that in the absence of actual physical compulsion he is free to act as he likes.
This presumption of free agency may not be applicable to person with a
deranged mind. The impulse to do a particular act even though he knows it
to be wrong or contrary to law, may be entirely due to mental disorder. Such
a disorder as may have weakened the power of resistance which a sane
person is expected to possess.

The law of crime only punishes a man for his faults and not for this
misfortune. Therefore, if a state of mind exists where a man knows what he
was doing and also that it was contrary to the law of the land, nonetheless he
was so diseased in this violation function as to be unable to keep away from
committing the harms.

Psychiatrists have expressed their opinion against the hypothesis that a

person’s intelligence may be quite normal but he may nonetheless be unable
to keep away from killing or robbing etc. it would be a case of irresistible
impulse. This thesis has some appeal because of common belief that
everyone has sometime in his life succumbed to a desire to do something
against his better judgement.

Irresistible impulse when attributable to a diseased mind seems to have been

recognised as a valid excuse in some English cases. Therefore. The
irresistible impulse test is not whether the individual be conscious of the
right and wrong, not whether he had a knowledge of the consequences of his
act, but whether he can properly control his action.28 If you allow the
defence of irresistible impulse, you make irresistible an impulse which now
is resistible and resisted because of the penal law.

28
Knaggs; Responsibility in Criminal Lunacy 69 (1854)

17 | P a g e
In KALICHARAN29, it has been pointed out that mere absence of motive
for a crime, howsoever brutal it may be, cannot, in the absence of plea and
proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section. The mere fact that
the murder is committed by the accused on a sudden impulse and there is no
discoverable motive for the act form on the basis for accepting the plea of
insanity.30

Generally, when there is sufficient intellect to distinguish between right

and wrong, the mere existence of an irresistible impulse would not excuse
liability. Thence, the law relating to irresistible impulse may be stated as
follows; firstly, the presence of such an impulse is not to be presumed from
the mere absenteeism of a motive for the criminal act.

Secondly, where the existence of a diseased mind is proved by other

evidence, such evidence along with the evidence furnished by the act itself
may suffice to prove the existence of an irresistible impulse. When it is
proved, is a good ground for exemption even though there may be sufficient
understanding that the act is wrong or contrary to the law.

Lastly, where the existence of such understanding is not negative, the mere
irresistible impulse does not seem to be a ground od exemption in India.

Durham Rule

In DURHAM v. UNITED STATES31, Durham was charged of house-

breaking and he pleaded the defence of insanity. The Circuit Court of

29
A.I.R. 1947 Nag. 226
30
Ganesh v. Shrawan, (1969) 71 Bom. L.R. 643
31
214 F. 2d. 862

18 | P a g e
Appeals declared that the existing test of criminal responsibility are obsolete
and should be superseded. The existing tests included both the M’ Naghten
Rule and the ‘irresistible impulse’ test. In this case the court evolved a new
test, namely, the product of mental disease. Mental disease was defined.
Only because the accused was suffering from a mental disease at the time,
he committed the act in issue would not suffice. He would still be
responsible for his unlawful act if there was no casual connection between
such mental abnormality and the act.

If it was proved that the offender was suffering from such mental
abnormality, the burden will lie upon the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the act was not the product of such abnormality. Thus,
the Durham product test means, the simple fact that a person has a mental
disease or defect is not enough to release him of accountability for a crime.
There must be a relationship between the disease and the criminal act, such
that the act would not have been committed if the person had no32t been
suffering from the disease.

Positive and Negative Impact of Insanity Defence

As stated earlier, the defence of insanity is used in genuine cases, but it

mostly comes into picture when the accused wants to escape from the

32

19 | P a g e
criminal liability. So, this defence has both positive as well as negative
impact.

1. Positive Impact: it is a solution in cases where the accused person, in

reality is dealing with some mental illness. But in today’s scenario,
such legitimate cases are in minority.
Also, the mental state of the accused may become a supporting
factor for his or her defence of insanity. Here the accused has to
confess that he has committed the crime which creates an
atmosphere of guilt but along with that the accused pleads that he
was not sane and was not known to the gravity and nature of the
offence he committed.
Since, death penalty cannot be given to the accused, but in some
cases a lower punishment may be given to the accused.
2. Negative Impact: in most of the cases it is used as an excuse to
escape form the acquittal or punishment. At times, it is very difficult
to examine whether the accused was sane or insane at the time of
committing of the offence.
in some cases, it is very difficult to prove the insanity of the accused.
It can be proved by the examination done by expertise, who can give
the actual proof of the mental illness of the accused, but at the end it
depends upon the point of view of the judge to accept or reject the
defence of insanity thus produced.

Thence, the general exception of insanity defence became a provision in the

IPC for the benefit of the mentally unfit but it is used as an excuse in most
of the cases.

Case Laws

20 | P a g e
In HARI SINGH GOD v. STATE OF M.P.33, the Hon’ble Court held that
the standard to be applied for deciding applicability of section 84 is whether
according to the ordinary standards, adopted by a reasonable man, the act
was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited odd irascible
and his brain is not quite all right or that the physical and mental ailments
from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his
emotions and will. It was held that section 84 had no application based on
the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the case of SUDHAKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA34, the accused was

alleged to have murdered his wife but he did not cause any hurt or
discomfort to the child. Rather he made up his mind to ensure that the child
could be put into proper care and custody after committing the alleged
crime. In his defence, he pleaded unsoundness of mind and was suffering
from paranoid schizophrenia. It was held that the burden is on the accused
to prove that by reason unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing
the nature of the act committed by him.

In this case, the conduct of the accused before and after incident was held
sufficient to negate any notion that he was mentally insane so as not to be
possessed of necessary mens rea for committing murder of his wife. Only
evidence placed on records shows that accused had been treated in
psychiatric hospital for 13 days some 15 years prior to the incident and
doctor had diagnosed the deceased as a psychotic disorder. Therefore, his
conviction was held to be proper by the court.

Conclusion

33
(2009) I Cri. L.J. 346 (S.C.)
34
(2011) I Cri. L.J. 292 (S.C.)

21 | P a g e
The cases of insanity defence or other party holding are subject to grave
offences as well paraphernalia. In today’s era, many criminals just escape
and roam freely by showing strong evidence in the courtroom as they have
many links with the people with power. If the cases under the subject of
insanity defence comes into picture, it is more disastrous in comparison to
others.

Most of the times the criminals escape by using this defence as a weapon
and justice is not served, because of which many a times the victim has to
face immense harassment in the court of law along with paying long bills as
court fee and lawyer’s fee. There is a need to examine such a law through
fast availability of a team of experts in the field of medical science and it
must be specialized with a competent lawyer so as to bring the medical
insanity and legal insanity to consensus.

There is no formal graduation course on the subject of forensic psychiatry in

India but such training centres that provide clinical services must be
provided, though they are present but in very less number. Taking into
consideration the current state of affairs, there should be a system to provide
training for the mental health series need to be provided. This would also
help in lowering the burden on the judiciary and lower the cost of the trial.

Thus, in STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. VIDHYA DEVI35, the accused was

admitted to the hospital even before chalan was filed where he remained
under treatment for 9 months. It was held that the accused was entitled to
privilege of section 84 of IPC as circumstances clearly show insanity of the
accused.

Bibliography

35
(2012) III Cr. L.J. 3398 (S.C.)

22 | P a g e
1. Mishra, prof. S.N., the Indian Penal Code, Central Law
Publication, Twentieth Edition 2016, Reprint 2017

References

1. Section 84 of the IPC: (31 July,2020): Retrieved from:

http://www.ejusticeindia.com/insanity-defence-a-loophole-for-
criminals/
2. Historical perspective: (31 July,2020): Retrieved from:
https://lawtimesjournal.in/insanity-defence-a-loophole-for-
criminals/#_edn2
3. Indian law on insanity: (2 August,2020): Retrieved from:
https://lawcorner.in/a-loophole-for-criminals-insanity-as-a-
defense/
4. Positive and negative impact: (2 august,2020): Retrieved from:
https://indianlegalsolution.com/insanity-defense-a-loophole-for-
criminals/
5. Durham’s rule: (3 August,2020): Retrieved from:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-durham-
rule.html
6. Irresistible impulse: (4 August,2020): Retrieved from:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-irresistible-
impulse-test.html

23 | P a g e