A

PROJECT WORK OF INDIAN PENAL CODE-I

FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

ODD SEMESTER INTERNAL EVALUATION

TITLE OF THE PAPER:

“Judicial Interpretation of unsoundness of mind: An analysis”

Under the Supervision of Submitted by:

Avishek Raj Name- Aman Kumar
Assistant Professor Student ID- 18FLICDDNO2020
ICFAI Law School BA-LL.B. (H.) II Year, Section- ‘A’
The ICFAI University, Dehradun Signature of Student-
The ICFAI Law School,
The ICFAI University, Dehradun

Submitted

To

The ICFAI University,Rajawala Road, Selaqui, Dehradun, 248011

(Uttarakhand
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. HISTORICAL VIEW
i. WILD BEAST TEST
ii. GOOD AND EVIL TEST
iii. RIGHT AND WRONG TEST
iv. MC’NAUGHTEN’S RULE
3. INSANITY UNDER ENGLISH LAW
4. INSANITY UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE
5. SUPREME COURT ON INSANITY DEFENSE
6. ELEMENTS FOR INSANITY DEFENSE
i. UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND
ii. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICAL INSANITY AND LEGAL INSANITY
iii. INCAPACITY TO KNOW THE NATURE OF THE ACT
iv. CAPACITY TO KNOW RIGHT OR WRONG
7. KINDS OF INSANITY
8. BURDEN OF PROOF
9. PLEA OF INSANITY
10. CONCLUSION

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND

2
In India, Section 84 of Indian penal code, 1860 is the general exception which describes the
defenses available to the person of an unsound mind. Persons of unsound minds are vulnerable in
nature.1 There is a complete chance of their exploitation in a situation where they are not being
sought protection. The law that protects an unsound minded person and provides defence from
criminal liability to the unsound minded person is known as the Law of Insanity.

Punishing a person who is not liable for the crime is the violation of the fundamental right of a
person according to Constitution of India. It also brings under the process of law that if a person
who is not able to defend himself in the court of law evokes the natural justice2 . The defence of
legal insanity is provided to mentally disordered offenders whose insanity devoid them to
rationalize the understanding of the crime which he committed. It is globally admitted that the
incapacity of committing the crime exempts the person from the punishment of the vary crime.

HISTORICAL VIEW

Defense for insanity exists for century, However, it took a legal position only since the last three
centuries. There are various tests for checking the person whether he is legally insane or not.

WILD BEAST TEST

The first test for insanity evolves in 1724 called as Wild Beast Test in the Arnold case. The judge
declared that no mentally affected prisoner should escape unless it should appear that he is
totally deprived of his understanding and memory and shows not know what he is doing, no
more than an infant, a brute or a wild beast.3

GOOD AND EVIL TEST

The "good and evil" test apparently first appeared in a 1313 case involving the capacity of a child
under the age of seven. The test reflected the moral dogmata of the medieval theological
literature. The insane, like children, were incapable of sinning against their will since, according
to the research done by Bernard Diamond and a colleague, man's freedom "is restrained in

1 Gaur KD. Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing; 2009. 

2 Gostin LO, Larry OG. A Human Condition: The law relating to mentally Abnormal Offenders. Vol. 2. MIND; 1977. 

3 R. v. Arnold. 1724, 16 St.Tr.695. Also see Lord Ferrer's case 1760, 19 St.Tr.885.

3
children, in fools, and in the witless who do not have reason whereby they can choose the good
from the evil (1233)."

THE RIGHT AND WRONG TEST

The "right and wrong" test (the true forerunner of M'Naghten) emerged in two 1812 cases; in the
second of the two, the jury was charged that it must decide whether the defendant "had sufficient
understanding to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong . . ." (Bellingham's Case, pp.
477, 671). The test was expanded upon in 1840, In Regina v. Oxford where the jury was told
that it must determine whether the defendant, "from the effect of a diseased mind," knew that the
act was wrong, and that the question that must thus be answered was whether "he was quite
unaware of the nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing"

MC NAUGHTEN’S RULE

In 1843, Daniel Mc Naughten, a wood-turner from Glasgow, shot and killed Edward Drummond
mistaking him for Sir Robert Peel. Mc Naughten believed that he was persecuted by the Tories,
and evidence was brought to show that he had been totally deluded on this subject for some time.
His state of mind was apparent from the outset when he had to be coaxed, and finally tricked,
into pleading “not guilty.” After hearing seven medical witnesses testify that he was completely
insane, the judge stopped the trial, the jury brought in the special verdict without summing up
and without retiring, and Mc Naughten was forcibly committed to the Bethlem Hospital. 4

Immediately thereafter, five propositions were drawn which were called Mc Naughten rules:-

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

responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved.
2. An insane person is punishable “if he knows” at the time of crime.
3. To establish a defense on insanity, the accused, by defect of reason or disease of mind, is
not in a position to know the nature and consequences.
4. The insane person must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the
facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.
5. It was the jury's role to decide whether the defendant was insane.
4 Daniel Mc Naghten's Case. 1843, 8 Eng. Rep. 718.

4
This Mc Naughten rule became a land mark precedent for the law concerning the defense of
insanity. Even, in India, insanity defense law, Section 84 IPC is based on the Mc Naughten rule.
Since it is drafted, no changes have been made. However, in 1971, there was an attempt by the
Law Commission of India to revisit the Section 84 in their 42nd report, but no changes were
made.

INSANITY UNDER ENGLISH LAW

The English law for insanity is also based on the Mc Naughten’s rule. The English law on
insanity is

“ Any person suffering from am 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 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

The defence for the insanity is described in the section 84 of the IPC which states that:-

“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 doing the act, or that he is
doing what is either wrong or contrary in law”.5

There are some principles for the application of this section :-

1. Every type of insanity is not legal insanity; the cognitive faculty must be destroyed as to
render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or
contrary to law;
2. the court shall presume the absence of such insanity;
3. the burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused, though it is not as heavy as the
prosecution;
4. the court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when
the offence was committed;

5 Ranchhoddas R, Thakore DK, Manohar V. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's the Indian Penal Code. Gurgaon: LexisNexis; 2013. 

5
 5. in reaching such a conclusion, the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed
the crime are relevant consideration; and
6. The prosecution in discharging its burden of the plea of legal insanity has merely to prove
the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of the law that everyone knows the
law and the natural consequences of his act.

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT ON INSANITY DEFENSE IN INDIA

Modern criminal law is based on the belief that humans are moral beings and not harm causing
agents. To help someone for the offence there are two essentials beyond reasonable doubt,

(a) The person committed the act (actus reus)

(b) In doing so, the person acted with his or her own free will, intentionally and for rational
reasons (mens rea).

ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR INSANITY DEFENSE

UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND:-

The term unsoundness of mind has not been described in the code. But, the court interpreted it as
insanity. This section deals with “Incapacity of mind” is the result of unsoundness of mind or
insanity. Not every type of insanity which are mentally approved is given protection under this
section. Medical insanity is different from legal insanity. The insanity should be such that it
destroys the mental capability of mind to degree that the person in not capable to understand the
nature of the act which he is committing what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.6 This
section will apply even in cases of fits of insanity and lucid intervals. But it must be proved in
such cases that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was surfing from a fit of
insanity which rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICAL INSANITY AND LEGAL INSANITY

Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged crime done by a person
with mental illness. There is no definition of “unsoundness of mind” in the IPC. According to
medical experts, every case of mental abnormality is insanity. According to law not all persons

6 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “ Indian penal code”, 29th ed., (2nd Ind. Rep.), 2004

6
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.

A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity.[16,19] Any person, who
is suffering from any kind of mental illness is called “medical insanity,7” however “legal
insanity” means, person suffering from mental illness should also have a loss of reasoning
power. The term legal insanity also refers to the “mental state” of a person at the time of
committing crime and nothing else. This is purely a legal concept and is unrelated to the various
psychiatric diagnoses.

In other words, legal insanity means the person the time of committing the act, the person should
be suffering from mental illness and also loss the power of reasoning

In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh8 , The Supreme Court observed
that Section 84 sets out the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged mental insanity. There
is no definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC. However, the courts have mainly treated this
expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself does not have a precise
definition. It is a term used to describe various degrees of mental disorder. So, every mentally ill
person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal responsibility. A distinction must be made
between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, not
medical insanity.

INCAPACITY TO KNOW THE NATURE OF THE ACT

The word “incapacity to know the nature of the act” is given in Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code refers to that state of mind when the accused was unable to appreciate the effects of his
conduct. It would mean that the accused is insane in every possible sense of the word, and such
insanity must sweep away his ability to appreciate the physical effects of his acts.

In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P9 , it was well established by the court that the crucial point of time
at which the unsound mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually
committed and whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to benefit from

7 Bapu vs State of Rajasthan. Appeal (crl.) 1313 of 2006. Date of Judgement on 4 June, 2007.
8 Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 2008, 16 SCC 109.
9 Rattan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. JT 2002 (7) SC 627

7
Section 84 can only be determined from the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed
the crime. In other words, it is the behavior precedent, attendant and subsequent to the event that
may be relevant in determining the mental condition of the accused at the time of the
commission of the offense but not those remote in time.

CAPACITY TO KNOW RIGHT OR WRONG

In order to use the defence of insanity under the latter part of Section 84, namely “or to do what
is either wrong or contrary to the law,” it is not necessary that the accused should be completely
insane, his reason should not be completely insane, his reason should not be completely
extinguished. What is required, is to establish that 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.” This part of Section 84 has made a new contribution to criminal law by introducing the
concept of partial insanity as a defence against criminal insanity

KINDS OF INSANITY

There no exact rules in regard to which kinds of insanity comes under ‘legal insanity’. By a
survey various case laws it shows that the courts are influenced more by the facts of the case and
the nature of crime, rather than any formal evidence as to the kind of insanity that the accused is
suffering from.

The legal insanity is divided into two broad heads:-

1. dementia naturalis i.e. individuals that are insane from birth.

2. dementia adventitia or accidentialis i.e. an individual who becomes insane after birth.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The supreme court defined the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of plea of insanity in
the following prepositions10:-

10 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “ Indian penal code”, 29th ed., (2nd Ind. Rep.), 2004

8
 1. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed
the offence with the requisite mens rea and the burden of proofing that always rests on
the prosecution.
2. There is a rebuttable presumption that the appellant was not insane, when he committed
the crime, in the sense laid down in the S.84 of IPC, The appellant may rebut it by
placing before the court all the relevant evidences.
3. Even if the appellant was not able to establish conclusive evidence that at the time of the
commitment of the crime the accuser was insane , the evidence placed before the court by
the appellant may rise 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 appellant in that case the
court would be entitled to acquit the appellant on the ground that the general burden of
proof rests on the prosecution was not discharged.

In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. state of Gujarat,11 the court has held that even if the
accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the
offense, the evidence placed before the court may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offense, 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.[23] Though the burden is on the
accused, he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the
preponderance of probabilities.

PLEA OF INSANITY

The burden of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused person, Hence the plea of insanity
should be taken by the accused or by his lawyer or his family members or previous history of
insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigating officer to subject the accused to a
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.
Hence, the plea of insanity should be taken during the investigation or during the trial in the
lower court not during the appeal to the higher court

11  Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat. 1964, 7SCR 361.

9
CONCLUSION

The Indian law for insanity is totally based on the Mc’Naughten’s rule. The Mc’Naghten rule is
based on the entirely obsolete and misleading conception of nature of insanity, since insanity
does not only affect the cognitive faculties but affects the whole personality of the person
including both the will and the emotions. An insane person may often know the nature and
quality of his act and that law forbids it but yet commit it as a result of the mental disease.
The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report after considering the desirability of introducing
the test of diminished responsibility under IPC, s. 84 gave its opinion in the negative due to the
complicated medico-legal issue it would introduce in trial. It is submitted that the Law
Commission’s view needs modification since it is not in conformity with the latest scientific and
technological advances made in this direction.

IPC, s. 84 only exempts one whose cognitive faculties are affected. The provision is regarded as
too narrow, and makes no provision for a case where one’s emotion and the will are so affected
as to render the control of the cognitive faculties ineffectual. The Courts must also adopt a
broader view of the Insanity and introduce the concept of diminished responsibility,The scope of
Section 84 should be expanded to incorporate the defense of automatism under the defense of an
unhealthy mind, just as it is recognized by the English criminal law system.

10