Insanity under IPC: An analysis of Section 84

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY SAVAN DHAMELIYA, A TRAINEE RESEARCH FELLOW AT RACOLB LEGAL AND A STUDENT OF AURO UNIVERSITY.

Introduction

Law recognizes the concept “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea“, and “amens ne sine mente” i.e. the physical act alone does not make a person guilty; the mental’ component in the form of evil intent (guilty mind) is equally important. This gives rise to the general exceptions that are given under the Indian Penal Code.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 recognizes defenses in chapter four under the heading ‘General Exceptions.’ Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC cover these defenses. The law offers certain defenses that exculpate criminal liability. These defenses are based on the premise that though the person committed the offense, he cannot be held liable. This is because, at the time of the commission of the offense, either the prevailing circumstances were such that the act of the person was justified or his condition was such that he could not form the requisite mens rea for the crime.

An excusable act is the one in which though the person has caused harm, it is held that a person should be excused because he cannot be blamed for the act. For example – if a person of unsound mind commits a crime, he cannot be held responsible for being mentally sick.

Insanity Laws

The defense of insanity is used by the defense to save their clients from capital punishment. It is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behavior, hence making them not legally accountable for the crime. The insanity defense is a legal concept, not a clinical one (medical one). This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a “preponderance of the evidence” which is similar to a civil case. It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court.[1]

Section 84 deals with the defense of insanity and is defined under the act as, “Nothing is an offense 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.”

History

The insanity defense has been in existence for many centuries; however, it took a legal position only since the last three centuries. Section 8 of the IPC is based on Mc Nauqhten’s rules of 1843 in England. Mr. Daniel Mc Naughten, while laboring under the delusion of persecution killed Mr. Edmund Drummond, the private secretary of British Prime Minister Mr. Robert Peel in mistake for the latter. It was shown that Mc Naughten had transacted a business shortly before the act and had shown no signs of insanity. The defense put forth the plea of insanity and the accused was acquitted. Due to adverse public reaction, the House of Lords decided to probe into the subject. Accordingly, some questions were put 180 before a bench of 14 judges in House of Lords. From the answers are given some rules were framed towards determination ‘of criminal responsibility of insane and were called Mc Naughten rules. It states that “in order to establish a defence on the grounds of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act (or making the omission), 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 knew what he was doing, that he did not know it was wrong.”

Essential ingredients

After evaluating and analyzing the insanity sections, the essential ingredients can be divided into three parts. It is necessary for the application of Section 84 to show —

1. That the accused was of unsound mind;
2. That he was of unsound mind at the time he did the act and not merely before or after the act; and
3. That as a result of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

Further is the explanation and relevant case laws for each of these sections for a better understanding as to how the courts decide and evaluate all of these ingredients.

Unsoundness of mind:

Unsoundness of mind is used to describe only those conditions that affect the cognitive capacity of an individual. So, every person who is mentally ill is not relieved from his responsibilities. Here the law makes a distinction between medical and legal insanity. There is a great difference between legal insanity and medical insanity, merely the doctors examination cannot be used to gain benefit but it is to be proved that the accused as a result of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

This distinction is further elaborated in the case of State Of Maharashtra vs Sindhi Alias Raman, S/O Dalwai … on 4 August 1987[2], it was noted that,

“There is a clear distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. Medical insanity may be of various types, kinds, and degrees. To what extent medical insanity affects the cognitive faculties of a person will naturally depend upon the nature of that insanity. A person may be suffering from some form of insanity recognized by the doctors as such, but that form of insanity may not necessarily be the unsoundness of mind contemplated by Section 84 of the I.P.C. If despite the insanity, which the doctor may find in a particular person, that person is able to recognize the nature and the quality of the act for which he is tried or if he is capable of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or was contrary to law, then the benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C. naturally would not be available to him.”

In the case of Surendra Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand[3], it was pointed out that “every person who is suffering from the mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability.”

Unsoundness should exist at the time of the act:

Another requirement under law is that this unsoundness of mind should exist at the time of the commission of the act. It is only if the person is suffering from insanity at the time of the act which matters and not before or after that. If insanity exists at the time of trial it can only lead to postponement of trial but not to the acquittal of the accused.

Although insanity before and after the act can be a factor to be considered for reasoning if the person was truly insane at the time of the commission of the act. Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra[4], the Supreme Court while determining an offense under Section 84 of IPC opined that “it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record” which would prove that the Appellant, in that case, was suffering from the said condition. It was added: “The unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact.”

An accused a young boy was brought up by his grandfather and studied abroad. His parents did not care about him; even his grandfather’s death was not communicated to him. On coming to India he committed brutal offenses at random. During the pendency of the trial, he completed studies and started his own business. His behavior was normal before and after the offense. But -was held insane while committing the offense and was acquitted.

In the case of Sarjerao Rambhau Machale Vs. The State of Maharashtra[5], it was held that the accused was not liable for punishment as they were insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Therefore the accused was acquitted.

Nature of the act

If accused did not know the nature of the act he was committing then he is not responsible for it., Similarly, if he knew the nature of the act but did not know whether it was wrong or contrary to the law he is not liable. On the other hand, if the person did not know the nature of the act but knew that it is wrong as contrary to the law he is held responsible.

In the case of X v. State of NCT of Delhi[6], it was held that at the time of committing the offense the accused was suffering from mental diseases and was a chronic mental patient and did not know the nature of the act committed. Hence in this recent decision, the high court acquitted the accused due to this.

Roles of the Courts and Examiners

A standard evaluation procedure of all patients who plead the insanity defense is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate that to 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
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.[7]

While courts themselves apply some tests for determining if a person is criminally insane. These tests can vary for different jurisdictions. These include:

• The “M’Naghten Rule”
• The “Irresistible Impulse” Test
• The “Durham Rule”
• The “Model Penal Code” Test for Legal Insanity[8]

Conclusion

It can be said that the laws relating to this field are well established already in India. The insanity plea in India is scrutinized to the utmost importance so that no false pleas can pass through and no dangerous person can be set free. The successful scrutinizing is evident from the data of pleas being successful for insanity. Insanity pleas had a success rate of about 17% in Indian High Courts in the past decade.[9] Thus it can be said that the plea of insanity serves its purpose with a well established legal system and hence protects the interests of the society at the same time.

[1] Section 84, IPC: An Analysis, Dr.Prateek Rastogi

[2] (1987) 89 BOMLR 423

[3] (2011) 11 SCC 49

[4] (2002) 7 SCC 748

[5] legalcrystal.com/1176006, Jul-29-2015

[6] X v. State of NCT of Delhi, 20 November, 2017

[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676201/#ref19

[8] https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/insanity-defense.html

[9]http://www.ijpm.info/article.asp?issn=02537176;year=2019;volume=41;issue=2;spage=150;epage=154;aulast=Ramamurthy