What is Mac Naughten rule

 The M’Naghten rule–which is sometimes spelled McNaghten–was the first

legal test for criminal insanity
 The test originated in 1843 in England during the case against Daniel
M’Naghten. M’Naghten shot and killed the secretary to the Prime Minister,
Edward Drummond, believing he was the Prime Minister.
 During his arrest, M’Naghten claimed he needed to murder the Prime Minister
because “the tories” were conspiring against him and wished to murder him.
 At trial, M’Naghten’s counsel put forth a [defense of
insanity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense#:~:text=The
''M'Naghten%20Rule''&text=The%20court%20acquitted%20M'Naghten,the%2
0rest%20of%20his%20life.&text=First%2C%20a%20defendant%20is%20deem
ed,time%20committing%20the%20object%20offense.), offering expert
testimony and other evidence in support of this. Following instructions from
the judge, the jury’s verdict was not guilty “by reason of insanity” and
M’Naghten spent the rest of his life in a mental institution.

Facts of the Case:

 Medical evidences were provided that M’Naghten was not capable of
exercising control over his acts while under his delusion. Due M’Naghten’s
condition these delusions grew gradually until they reached a climax, ending
with Drummond being shot.
 Defense counsel introduced expert and presented witnesses who testified
about the Defendant’s obsession with delusions and he suffered from acute
insanity.
 The Chief Justice in his charge to the jury said that the question for them to be
determined was whether at the time of committing the act he had or had not
the use of his understanding to know that he was violating the law of God and
man.
 The jury reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
 when the Judges ruled in the case that “to establish a defence on the ground
of insanity,
 it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the
party 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”
 Following this a panel of Judges attended the House of Lords and had a series
of hypothetical questions on the topic of insanity put before them.
Issues
 The hypothetical questions about insanity the judges had to address were as
follows:
 What is the law respecting alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with
insane delusion, in respect of one or more particular subjects or persons: as,
for instance, where at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, the
accused knew he was acting contrary to law, but did the act complained of
with a view**, under the influence of insane delusion,** of redressing or
revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some
supposed public benefit?
 What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury, when a person
alleged to be afflicted with insane delusion respecting one or more particular
subjects or persons, is charged with the commission of a crime (murder, for
example), and insanity is set up as a defence?
 In what terms ought the question to be left to the jury, as to the prisoner’s
state of mind at the time when the act was committed?
 If a person under an insane delusion as to existing facts, commits an offence
in consequence thereof, is he thereby excused?
 Can a medical man conversant with the disease of insanity, who never saw the
prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole trial and
the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the state of
the prisoner’s mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or his
opinion whether the prisoner was conscious at the time of doing the act, that
he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was labouring under any and
what delusion at the time?
 Decision/Outcome
 In response to these questions the Judges formulated the M’Naghten
Rules (1843) 4 St.Tr.(N.S.) 847. These provide the legal definition of insanity.
They provide that a defendant wishing to rely on the defence of insanity must
show that:
 They laboured under a defect of reason
 Caused by a disease of the mind; so that either
 He did not know the nature and quality of his acts, or that he did not know
what he was doing was wrong.
Answers
The answers given by the judges in M’Naghten case may be summarized in the
following five rules:-

 That 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 the court
 In order to establish defence on ground of insanity it must be clearly shown
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 that
what he was doing was wrong.
 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. Whereas criminal act is done by a man under some insane
delusion as to the surrounding facts, which conceals him from the true nature
 as to the surrounding facts, which conceals him from 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 imagined them to be
 A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be
asked on the evidence whether he thinks that the accused was insane.

Examples of Insanity Using the M’Naghten Rule

The best way to get a better understanding of this type of legal insanity is to see a
few examples of how the rule may be applied to certain scenarios.

 Example 1: A man murdered his wife and daughter, and then waited calmly for
the police to arrive. Three mental health experts testified that he was too
psychologically ill to understand that his criminal acts were wrong. He was
found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to 10 years in a mental
health facility.
 Example 2: A woman with severe schizophrenia is charged with assault and
battery after attacking her next-door neighbor with a shovel. She claims the
neighbor was actually a demon who was trying to harvest her soul. She was
found not guilty by reason of insanity after the court determined that she
failed to understand the nature of her actions.
Position of “Insanity” in India:
 Section 84 of the Indian Penal code explains the act of a person of unsound
mind.
 Section 84 contains the provision which relieves the accused person from
criminal liability on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
 Section 84 in substance is similar to the M’Naghten rules because there is very
little distinction between section 84 and answers 2 and 3 of the M’Naghten
rules.
 Section 84 provides as under: “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”.
 The accused is not protected if he knows at the time of doing an act that what
he was doing was wrong even though he did not know that it was contrary to
law.
 Sec 84 of Indian Penal Code contains a basic principle of the criminal
jurisprudence that is “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means that
the act itself does not make a person guilty unless and until the intention was
so. Therefore, in order to constitute an offence, the act must be accompanied
by the intention to commit that act so the section imposes no criminal liability
upon an insane person as they can possess no rational thinking or necessary ill
will or the mens rea.

There is a minor distinction in Section 84 and answers 2 and 3 of the

M’Naghten rule.

 The M’Naghten rules provide the terms “nature and quality” of the act
whereas Section 84 does not provide the terms “Quality”. Likewise, the term
“Contrary to Law” used in Section-84 is not present in the M’Naghten rules.

Indian Law on the Defence of Insanity

 Insanity is provided in accordance with Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code as
a defence under Indian Law.
 However, the term “insanity” is not used under this provision.
 The Indian Penal Code uses the sentence “mental soundness.” In accordance
with the code, the defence of insanity, or that can also be called defence of
mental insanity, comes from M’Naghten’s rule.
 In Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a person of an unsound mind shall
act- Nothing is an offence committed by someone who is currently unable to
 know the nature of the act or does what is wrong or contrary to legislation
due to a lack of a sound mind.
 Nevertheless, it should be noted that the framers of the IPC preferred to use
the expression “insanity of mind” instead of the term “insanity.” Insanity’s
scope is very limited, while the mind’s insanity covers a large area.
 For this defence, the following elements are to be established-
o The accused was in a state of unsoundness of mind at the time of the
act.
o He was unable to know the nature of the act or do what was either
wrong or contrary to the law. The term ‘wrong’ is different from the
term ‘contrary to the law.’
o If anything is ‘wrong’, it is not necessary that it would also be ‘contrary
to the law.’ The legal conception of insanity differs significantly from
medical conception. Not every form of insanity or madness is
recognized as a sufficient excuse by law.

Conclusion
 M’Naghten rule controversy has been a continuous subject of debate for the
last 100 years and more, however it remains that despite the depth of
criticisms the rule continues to play an important part in law.
 The increase understanding in science and medicine and especially in Neuro
science have meant that it is possible to detect capacity of making decisions
at what intervals and making it easier to resolve the legal and moral
judgement of past behaviours.
 It remains a sound principle of penal responsibility and whilst there may be
areas of development to take into consideration for amendments, the
principle of irrationality should continue as criteria for insanity.
 The law commission is wise to retain the current test as attempts to change
have remained less than satisfactory. I also agree with the Commission’s
conclusion that the test may need to be tweaked rather than a full scale
change.