DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:
Insanity and criminal liability

SUBJECT:
Criminal law- I

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

DR. P. Vara Lakshmi

Name of the Candidate: K. Yamini Reddy

Registration number: 2018040
Semester: 3
Acknowledgement
Writing a project is one of the most significant academic challenges I have ever faced.
Though this project has been presented by me but there are many people who remained in
veil, who gave their all support and helped me to complete this project.

First of all, I am very grateful to my Subject Teacher DR.P. Vara Lakshmi , without the kind
support of whom and help the completion of project was a herculean task for me.

I am very thankful to the Librarian who provided me several books on this topic. I
acknowledge my friends who gave their valuable and meticulous advice which was very
useful and could not be ignored in writing the project. I also owe special thanks to my parents
for their selfless help which was very useful in preparing the project.
 SYNOPSIS
TITLE OF THE PROJECT: Insanity and criminal liability
INTRODUCTION:Insanity defence is primarily used in criminal prosecutions. 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 behaviour, hence making them not legally accountable for
crime. Insanity defence 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 defence 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.

RESEARCH QUESTION:
1. Whether there stands any difference between clinical concept of insanity and legal
concept of insanity?
2. Whether there should be any development of sound conditional release programs for
criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity?
3. Whether abolishing or limiting the defence of insanity have an impact on serious
crime?

LITERATURE REVIEW:The researcher has taken the information from many web
sources, online articles, journals, books and many sources
Books reviewed:
S. No Name of the book Name of the Author Year of Publication
1 The Indian penal code 1860 S.N. Mishra 2019
2 Indian Penal code Ratanlal & Dhirajlal 2019

Web sources:
S. no Name of the website Title of the article
1. NCBI Insanity Defense: Past,
Present, and Future
 2. Psychology today The definition of Insanity
3. Legal information Institute Insanity defence
4. Oxford Academic Mental Insanity and its
defences
Journals referred:
S. No Name of the Journal Title of the journal Author
1. Law and human behaviour Empirical Research Randy Borum and
on the Insanity Solomon M. Fulero
Defense and
Attempted Reforms:
Evidence Toward
Informed Policy
2. Journal of Law and biosciences Insanity and
criminal
Gawon go
responsibility
3. Journal of experimental social Insanity and the Victor Tadors
Psychology capacity of criminal
responsibility

Research methodology:The research work will be doctrinal type of research by referring

to library and online resources. The nature of the study will be descriptive, explanatory and
comparative.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to
successfully defend it in court. This project focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision on
insanity defence and standards employed in Indian court. Researchers present a model for
evaluating a defendant's mental status examination and briefly discuss the legal standards and
procedures for the assessment of insanity defence evaluations.

Scope of the study:The concept of Insanity and criminal liability has a wider scope, to
cover. Due to lack of time the researcher has focussed only on the concept of evolution of
Insanity plea in India and its emerging trends from the its inception to till this date, and made
a larger emphasis on the section 84 of Indian penal code and section 464 and 465 of
Criminal procedure code.
Hypothesis:There is an urgent need to initiate formal graduation course, setup Forensic
Psychiatric Training and Clinical Services Providing Centres across the country to increase
the manpower resources and to provide fair and speedy trail.

Contents:
1. Synopsis
2. Abstract
3. The history of Insanity plea
4. Insanity in law
5. Insanity in medical terms
6. Legal and medical Insanity distinguished
7. Insanity under Indian penal code
7.1. Mc. Naughton rule and its principles
7.2. Ingredients of sec 84
7.3. Kinds of Insanity
7.4. The law commission report
7.5. Criticism on M’ Naughton rule
8. Explanation and application of insanity
8.1. Wild beast test
8.2. Insane delusion test
8.3. Mc. Naughton test
8.4. The model penal code test
9. Insanity under Criminal procedure code
[Link] laws & Judicial interpretation
[Link] of insanity in other criminal codes: an overview
[Link]
[Link]
 Abstract:

The concept of responsibility connects with our most fundamental convictions about human
nature and dignity and everyday experience of guilt and innocence and blame and
punishment. Punishing a person, who is not responsible for the crime, is a violation of the
basic human rights and fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. It also brings the
due process of law, if that person is not in a position to defend himself in the court of law,
evoking the principle of natural justice.

The affirmative defence of legal insanity applies to this fundamental principle by excusing
those mentally disordered offenders whose disorder deprived them of rational understanding
of their conduct at the time of the crime. Hence, it is generally admitted that incapacity to
commit crimes exempts the individual from punishment. This is recognized by the legislation
of most of the civilized nations.

In India, Section 84 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the “act of a person of unsound
mind” and discusses insanity defence. However, in the recent past some of the U.S. states
(such as Montana, Idaho, Kansas, and Utah) have banned insanity defence. This issue has
raised a serious debate among medical, psychology and law professionals across the world.

Very little research has been done on this topic in India, however, there are few studies on
exploring the clinical picture of the patients in prison. A landmark study in the forensic
psychiatry of Indian setting occurred in 2011, in which 5024 prisoners were assessed on
semi-structured interview schedule reported that 4002 (79.6%) individuals could be
diagnosed as having a diagnosis of either mental illness or substance use. After excluding
substance abuse, 1389 (27.6%) prisoners still had a diagnosable mental disorder.

Another study from India portray a very gloomy picture of patients in forensic psychiatry
settings and advocate for there is a need to streamline the procedure of referral, diagnosis,
treatment, and certification. To address this issue of streamlining the process of evaluation of
insanity defence and certification, in this project the researcher focuses on semi-structured
assessment in the Indian context based on landmark Supreme Court decisions. In addition, to
this the researcherhas also presented a model for evaluating a defendant's mental status
examination and briefly discussed the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of
insanity defence evaluations.

3..The history of insanity plea:

Before the thirteenth century, mental disease had no legal significance in the criminal law.
The first recorded English case with an acquittal by reason of insanity was notably decided in
1505.1 In the eighteenth century, Rex v. Arnold2became one of the first recorded cases in
England where the aptly named "right versus wrong" or wild beast test was called-upon.
Arnold case serves as precedent for the holding that an assertion of madness as a defence
would not result in a not guilty verdict without the prerequisite finding of total insanity.

In the 1843 landmark case of Daniel Mc’ Naughton, 3 the jury found the defendant not guilty
by reason of insanity. The jury determined that at the time of the crime the defendant suffered
from the "morbiddelusion" that many people, including the Prime Minister of England, were
persecuting him. Daniel Mc’ Naughton, under the mistaken impression that the Prime
Minister was indeed riding in his own carriage, shot and killed the Prime Minister's secretary,
Edward Drummond, who actually was using the carriage at the time.

Although the rule has undergone substantial change over the last century-and-a-half in the
United States, English courts continue to follow it. Even intense criticism of the rule has not
stopped a number of states from following some form of the old Mc’ Naughton Rule.

The facts of the case R v. Mc’Naughton are as follows:

The accused, Daniel M’Naughten suffered from delusion that sir Robert Peel, the then prime
minister of Britain had injured and in order to take revenge, his mistook Edward Drummond,
the secretary of the prime minister for sir Robert Peel and shot him dead. When charged of
murder, the accused took the defence of insanity

4. Insanity in law:

Insanity or unsoundness of mind is not defined in any act. It means a disorder of the mind,
which impairs the cognitive faculty; that is, the reasoning capacity of man to such an extent
as to render him incapable of understanding consequences of his actions. It means that the

1
Nigel Walker, Crime and Insanity in England: Volume One: The Historical Perspective, 25-26 (1968).
2
16 How. St. Tr. 695 (1724).
3
10 Cl. & Fin. 200 (H.L. 1843)
person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of realising that the act is wrong or
contrary to law.4

There are 3 kinds of person who may be said to be “non compos mentis” (not of sound mind)

(1) An idiot – an idiot is one who from birth had defective mental capacity. Thisinfirmity in
him is perpetual without lucid intervals;

(2) One made so by illness – by illness, a person is made non compos mentis. He
is,Therefore, excused in case of criminal liability, which he acts under the influence ofthis
disorder;

(3) A lunatic or a madman – lunatics are those who become insane and whose
incapacitymight be or was temporary or intermittent. A lunatic is afflicted by mental
disorderonly at certain period and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason.5

5. Insanity in medical terms:

Medically, insanity has not been comprehended to the general acceptance level. Unsoundness
of mind is the current and accepted notion of insanity by the medical experts. “Doctors with
experience of mental disease contended that insanity does not only, or primarily affect the
cognitive or intellectual faculties, but affects the whole personality of the patient, including
both the will and emotions.

Medical conception of insanity can be defined as a mental abnormality due to various factors
existing in varying degrees. In wider connotation, it includes idiocy, madness, lunacy, mental
derangement, mental disorder and every other possible form of mental abnormality known to
medical science. It recognizes sudden and uncontrollable impulse driving a man to kill or to
cause injury within the scope of insanity. However, the legal concept of insanity widely
differs from that of the medical concept. The scope of the meaning of insanity in medical
terms is much wider when compared to its legal meaning.

6..legal and medical insanity distinguished:

“It is in the case of every person pronounced to be insane according to medical science to be
excused?”

4
D.D. Basu, Indian Penal Code, 257 (9th ed., 2006).
5
Y. V. Chandrachud. Ratanlal And Dhirajlal's, The Indian Penal Code, 111(30th ed., Wadhwa and Co. Publishers,
1997).
No insanity for the purpose of criminal law differs from that in the medical sense. According
to medical experts, every case of mental abnormality is insanity. According to law not all
persons 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.

He as a normal man plans the crime; they sometimes can plan better and even execute it even
with more care. He knows what he is doing is wrong. We judge a man's responsibility with
regards to his mens rea. Only those cases where because of insanity he does not know what
he is doing or he does not know what he is doing is a wrong, only they can be excused. So,
amongst all the medically insane persons, only a few are legally insane.

The law propounds a different test from that in the medical field. The test in law is simply,
whether because of his insanity he is incapable of possessing mens rea. It is only where the
insanity destroys the cognitive faculty of mind, it is considered as insanity in law. The faculty
of reasoning and judgement is also considered. An insane person is not punished because he
does not have any guilty mind to commit the crime.

7. Insanity under Indian penal code:

The defence of insanity is discussed in sec 84 of the Indian penal code which reads:

“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.”

Principles for The Application of This Section:

The following principles are to be kept in mind in applying 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. 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.

[Link]’ Naughton rule and its principles:

In 1843 the law of insanity was more properly formulated by the house of lords in the historic
case of R v. Mc'Naghten6.

IPC section 84 deals with the law of insanity on the subject. This provision is made from the
M’Naghten rules of England. In the draft penal code, Lord Macaulay suggested two section
(66 and 67), one stating that nothing is an offence which is done by a person in a state of
idiocy and the other stating that .nothing is an offence which a person does in consequence of
being mad or delirious at the time of doing it to deal with insanity.7

The Law Commissioners in replacing these two provisions by IPC, section 84 have adopted a
brief and succinct form of the McNaghten rules. It has been drafted in the light of the replies
to the second and third questions, which is generally known as McNaghten rules. 8 But IPC,
section 84 uses a more comprehensible term unsoundness of mind instead of insanity.

There were four significant questions which were raised in front of the House of Lords and
the replies by the jury for theses question were named as M'Naghten Principle. The Four
principles were mention below.9

 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 jury.

 To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the
time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of
reason from disease of 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.

6
M'Naghten, 10 Cl. & Fin. at 201
7
K.N. Pillai, General Principles Of Criminal Law, 267 (1st ed., Eastern Book Company 2005).
8
K.D. Gaur, Commentary On Indian Penal Code, 271 (1st ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. 2006).
9
Insanity And Automatism, UK Law Commission Report, Supplementary Material to the Scoping Paper (July
2012)
  He should not be aware that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land
and he is punishable.

 Where a person under an insane delusion as to existing facts commits and offence in
consequence thereof, the judges indicated that the answer must depend on the nature
of the delusion; but making the assumption that he is under a partial delusiononly, and
is not in other respects insane, he must be considered in the same situation as to
responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.
There are two significant issues related to the Insanity Rule, which are necessary to be
elaborate for the clear interpretation of these rules.

1) The use of the word "know":10

(a) the word "know" can either take on its cognitive meaning namely, is the defendant able to
perceive correctly certain objective features of their conduct, i.e. I am shooting a gun; or

(b) the word "know" can have a more affective meaning namely, whether the defendant is
able to fully appreciate the significance of cognitive observations i.e. understand what he
objectively knows; and

2) The use of the word "wrong":

(a) In narrow terms, the word wrong could mean a particular crime; or

(b) In the broader sense, wrong could take into account the defendant's individual beliefs
about the desirability of his or her conduct. These two issues still animate discussion of the
M'Naghten Rule, which continues to play a role in the insanity defence in England and
America.

7.2. Ingredients of sec 84:

Essential ingredients of this section are

Act must be done by a person of unsound [Link] a person must be incapable of:-

a. Knowing the nature of the act.

b. The act was contrary to law.

c. That the act was wrong.

The incapacity of the person must have existed at the time of commission of the act

10
J. Y. Kim, Rule and Exception in Criminal Law, 82 TUL. L. REV. 247,289(2007).
Unsoundness of Mind:

The term unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the code. But it has been equated by
the courts to mean insanity. This section only deals with incapacity of mind which is a result
of ‘unsoundness of mind' or ‘insanity'. It is not every type of insanity which is recognized
medicallythat is given the protection of this section.

Medical insanity is different from legal insanity. The insanity should be of such a nature that
it destroys 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 [Link] 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.

In Bikari v. State of U.P.,11 it was held that where evidence of deliberate or premeditated
actions are found, destruction of cognitive faculties cannot be inferred. Such unsoundness
however cannot be inferred from mere lack of motive or the nature of the defendant's
preceding or subsequent actions.

Such was the dictum of the Supreme Court in Sheralli Walli Mohammed v. State of
Maharashtra12.

In Lakshmi v. State,13 the meaning as to unsoundness of mind was cleared up. It was held
that what section 84 lays down is that the accused claiming protection under it should not
know an act to be right or wrong but that the accused should be "incapable" of knowing
whether the act done by him is right or wrong. The former is a potentiality; the latter is the
result of it. If the person possesses the former, he cannot be protected in law, whatever might
be the result of his potentiality.

Wrong or contrary to law:

Wrong here means moral wrong not the legal wrong.14 But Indian law permits the defence to
apply where the accused knew that the act was contrary to law but thought that it was morally
right to do, and vice versa as in contrast with English law which confines to only legal

11
AIR 1961 SC 1.
12
AIR 1972 SC 2443.
13
AIR 1963 ALL 534.
14
Kherajmal v. State 1955 CriLJ 63, Guj HC
[Link] covers those cases wherein a man by reason of delusion is unable to appreciate the
distinction between right and wrong.15

Burden of proof

The principle that the court follows is that ‘every person is sane unless contrary is proved’.
The onus of proving insanity is one the person who is pleading it as a defence. The
SupremeCourt upheld the principle in the case of S.W. Mohammed v. State of Maharastra16
and said that the accused have to prove that he is insane. However, this requirement of proof
is not heavy as on the prosecution to prove the offence and is based on balance of
probabilities.

7.3. kinds of Insanity:

There are no hard and fast rules in respect of what are the kinds of insanity which are
recognized by courts as ‘legal insanity'. A survey of the case law reveals 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.

Law group's insanity into two broad heads, namely,

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

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

Hallucination or Delusion:

Hallucination or delusion 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 Bombay and
the madras high courts have held that for a person who is not insane but is suffering from
hallucination, this section cannot be invoked.

Somnambulism:

Somnambulism is the unconscious state known as sleep walking and if proved, will constitute
unsoundness of mind and the accused will get the benefit under this section.

15
Y. V. Chandrachud. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's, The Indian Penal Code, 113(30th ed., Wadhwa and Co.
Publishers, 1997).
16
AIR 1972 SC 216
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

Insanity as Result of Smoking Ganja or Heavy Intoxication:

Where 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.
The accused can take shelter under this section, if he can prove that the insanity existed at the
time of the commission of the act.

7.4. The law commission report:

After much deliberation it was decided that the provisions in the criminal justice system
dealing with the insanity defense need no alteration and the same were left untouched.17

However. This decision of the Law Commission has come under fire since the M'Naghten
Rule (which is based the Indian insanity defense) has come under increasing attack in most
common law countries. In fact, to remedy it in adequacies, a vast number of legislations
andnew theories have been formulated. In India however no such innovations have been
introduced and we continue to live with this much criticized system.

The Indian Law on insanity is based on the rules laid down in the M’Naghten case. 18
However, the M’Naghten rules have become obsolete and are not proper and suitable in the
modern era.19

7.5. criticism on M’ Naughton rules:

The British Royal Commission on capital punishment that made its report in 1953, and
criticised the rule. Experienced lawyers and doctors also criticised the rule.

17
Shivraj Singh v. State of M.P., 1975 Cr LJ 1458
18
Bhan Singh v. State of M.P., 1990 Cr LJ 1861 (MP).
19
Elkai Shankari v. State of A.P., 1990 Cr LJ 97 (AP).
Doctors with experience on mental disease ‘have contended that the Mc’Naghten test 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.

Many scholars criticised the Mc’Naghten test because it only looked at the cognitive and
moral aspects of the defendant’s actions.20 An insane person may therefore 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.21 The Royal Commission came to the conclusion that the test of insanity laid down in
Mc’Naghten rules is defective and the law must be changed. The Contemporary psychiatry
and psychology emphasize that man's social behaviour is determined more by how he has
learned.

[Link] and application of insanity:

Insanity defence has been in existence since the twelfth century. However, it has been
recognized as an argument for pardon or a way to mitigate a sentence but not as legal defense
claiming exemption from criminal liability. There are certain tests for the insanity defense
some of them are obsolete in the present time and few of them has laid down the new
principle for insanity defense in various criminal laws jurisdiction of the world.

8.1. Wild Beast Test

It was the first test to check insanity that was laid down in the case of R v. Arnold 22 in 1724.
It described a man that is totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not
know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a brute, or a wild beast, such a one is
never the object of punishment.

8.2. Insane delusion Test:

The Insane Delusion test was the second test concerning the defence of insanity. It was laid
down by the House of Lords in Hadfield Case 23. In this case Hadfield was charged for high
treason in attempting the assassination of King George III.

20
K.M Sharma, Defence of Insanity in Indian Criminal Law, 335 The Journal of the Indian Law Institute (1965)
21
Royal Commission report, pp. 90.
22
(1724) 16 [Link].695.
23
(1800) 27 [Link].128.
The counsel for the accused Mr. Erskine was successful in proving that the accused was
suffering under the insane delusion, a mental disease and thus obtained the verdict of not
guilty.24

8.3. Mc’ Naughton test:

The law relating to the defence of insanity is to be found in the rules set out in McNaughten
that delineate the circumstances in which an accused will be held not to have been legally
responsible for his conduct.25

8.4. The Model Penal Code Test:

The Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute embraces a third insanity test that
incorporates both the cognitive element of the M'Naghten test and the volitional element of
the irresistible impulse test.

It reads: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a
result of a mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the
criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of
law.

The first wrong, the appreciation of criminality is a substantial revision of the M'Naghten
test, collapsing its redundant wrongs, substituting the more lenient "appreciate" for the
stricter "know," and allowing jurisdictions the option to resolve the moral-legal question by
inserting either "criminality" or "wrongfulness."

The second wrong, the conforming of conduct restates the irresistible impulse test but avoids
the ambiguous word "impulse." The Model Penal Code also modifies both of its wrongs with
"lacks substantial capacity" and thus departs from both earlier tests in requiring less than total
incapacitation. As a result, the Model Penal Code test is broader and some would say more
realistic than the earlier tests.

8.5. The “Irresistible Impulse” Test:

In some cases, however, a defendant may know that his or her actions were wrong, but
committed them because of an “irresistible impulse.” The “Irresistible Impulse” test is used
by a number of states in combination with the M’Naghten rule. With the
24
Richard J. Bonnie et al., Decision-making in Criminal Defence: An Empirical Study of Insanity Pleas and the
Impact of Doubted Client Competence, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 48, 54 (1996).
25
Johnson v. State, 76 So. 2d 841, 844.
“IrresistibleImpulse”test, the focus is on volition. Essentially, the test allows for a defendant
to be found not guilty by reason of insanity if his or her mental illness meant that, although
recognizing the wrongness of the offense, he or she was compelled to commit the offense
anyway.

[Link] 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.

10. Judicial Interpretation of Insanity & case laws:

1. State of MP V. Ahamdullah

Subject: 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 [Link] 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.

2. Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar V. State Of Gujarat

In this case, the accused was charged and convicted under the IPC, s. 302 for the murder of
his wife. The accused killed his wife with wife by inflicting her with 44 knife injuries on her
body. The accused raised the plea of insanity at the trial court.

Trial court however rejected the contention on the ground that the statements made to the
police immediately after the incident did not showed any sign of insanity. This conviction
was confirmed by the high court. The accused made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court also upheld the conviction of the accused and laid down certain criteria
according to which an accused in entitled to the defence under the provision. It said that in
determining whether the accused has established his case under the purview of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, s. 84, ‘the court has to consider the circumstances which preceded, attended and
followed the crime. The crucial point of time for determining the state of mind of the accused
is the time when the offence was committed. The relevant facts are motive for the crime, the
previous history as to mental condition of the accused, the state of his mind at the time of the
offence, and the events immediately after the incident that throw a light on the state of his
mind'.

3. 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.
 4. Hazara Singh V. State

In this case, Hazara Singh was under a delusion that his wife was unfaithful to him. One day,
being disturbed by those thoughts, he caused her death by pouring nitric acid over her.
Medical evidence showed that he knew what he was doing and had the ordinary knowledge
of right and wrong. He was convicted for murder.

5. Bhikari V. State of Uttar Pradesh

It is not for the prosecution to establish that a person who strikes another with a deadly
weapon was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing
was either wrong or contrary to law. Everyone is presumed to know the consequences of his
act. Similarly, everyone is also presumed to know the law. These are not facts that the
prosecution has to establish. It is for this reason that sec 105 of The Evidence Act places upon
the accused person the burden of proving the exception upon which he relies.

Undoubtedly, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused
had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. Once that is done a presumption that
the accused was sane when he committed the offence would arise. This presumption is
rebuttable and he can rebut it either by leading evidence adduced in the case whether by
prosecution or by the accused and when the reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the
court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the
accused, he would be entitled to be acquitted.

In the present case, there is evidence that up to the time of occurrence he (accused) has been
doing with his cultivation. There is no evidence on record to prove the characteristic of his
habit from which it could be concluded that he was acting like an insane man. Before the
commission of the crime he did not beat any person. On the other hand, few months before
occurrence the accused admittedly picked up quarrel with mangali and Bhaiya Lal and had
given threats to make their family extinct. An insane person could not have done so like a
sane person. Further on the date of the occurrence many children were playing including his
own cousin sister. But first of all, he gave a sickle blow only to Babu ram and other children
of the family of mangali and babul al and not to any other child. This shows that he did not
act under the influence of insanity but only with some previous deliberation and preparation.
It is further in evidence that he had given threats to the witnesses. He beat Hiralal only when
he tried to stop the act of beating of children of mangali and Bhaiya Lal's family with whom
he had picked up quarrel previously. Lastly, a sense of fear prevailed in hi and that is why he
acted as a sane man by running and then escaping by jumping into ganges river. So all these
circumstances lead to one conclusion that he was not insane and he had acted like a sane man
and with some motive.

Held: death sentence was upheld.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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,
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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Law of insanity in other criminal codes: An overview:

The Criminal Codes of many countries provide for a broader scope for the defence of
insanity.

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 Mc’Naughten 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 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:

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'.

Insanity under the statute of International criminal court of Justice:

The ICC Statute contains provisions spelling out some of the general principles of criminal
responsibility one of which is Article 31 which provides for certain defences. Among them is
the defence of insanity which reads as follows:

[A] Person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person's conduct the
person suffers from a mental disease or defect that destroys that person's capacity to
appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her
conduct to conform to the requirements of law.

12. suggestions:

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. There
are three compartments of the mind - controlling cognition, emotion and will. 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 controlof the cognitive faculties
ineffectual. The Courts must also adopt a broader view of the Insanity and introduce the
concept of diminished responsibility.

The Indian Government may also look at the provisions of the other countries relating to
insanity. Swiss Penal Code, s. 10 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'.

This provision is much broader and is better suited for the defence of insanity. The researcher
submits that the defence of insanity is too narrow and must be amended to suit the present
demands.

13. Conclusion

The Indian Law on insanity is based on the rules laid down in the Mc'Naghten case.

However, the Mc'Naghten rules have become obsolete and are not proper and suitable in the
modern era.

The Mc'Naghten rules 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.

The present definition only looks at the cognitive and moral aspects of the defendant's actions
but ignores the irresistible impulse that may be forcing him to commit that act. 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.