NAME OF THE PROJECT:

Insanity as a defence: The Indian Penal Code

SUBJECT:

INDIAN PENAL CODE

NAME OF THE STUDENT:

Stuti Mehrotra

ROLL NO:
21011539

ABSTRACT
 ABSTRACT

The Indian penal code makes no mention of insanity or mental insanity. However, it is
primarily utilized when there is the possibility of criminal prosecution. Insanity refers to any
illness that affects a person's cognitive abilities and causes the individual to feel that he is
unable to comprehend the repercussions of his actions during this period of commission of
the Act

This research paper also explores the history of the legal insanity theory and how section 84
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, came to embody it. Furthermore, it goes through section 84's
key components. Several tests of the Rule of Insanity are discussed, including the Wild Beast
Test and the Insane Delusion the Right and Wrong Test. The distinctions between medical
and legal insanity and the regulations under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 apply to it. The
research then talks about the landmark cases that led to the defense of insanity in India and a
close look at insanity and the other jurisdictions across different nations. The investigation
concludes with recommendations and findings for the audience. This research narrows our
understanding of the problems affecting Indian defense.
 INTRODUCTION

The insanity defense is one of the cornerstones of criminal law, which exempts individuals
from criminal liability based on their mental condition. 'Actus non facit rem, nisi mmen'ssit
rea' is a Latin phrase stating that the mere action does not amount to criminal liability unless
and until it involves a guilty mind. Some essential elements must coexist for a person to be
convicted for a given crime, i.e. the actus reus and the men's rea. The Mens Rea refers to the
"guilty mind", and the men's rea, the understanding of the offence also comes along with it.
Henceforth for a legally insane offender as a result of his mental state he she could not have
wilfully had the intent to carry out an act or possess the necessary knowledge of the
wrongfulness of this act1

Insanity is a disorder where the imperative functions are impaired, and a person cannot
understand the nature and the consequences of any act. The Indian penal code has included
the defence of insanity under section 84, which states, " act committed by a person of
unsound mind. —Nothing is an offence done by a person who, because of unsoundness of
mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he is doing what is wrong or
contrary to law."2 According to this act a person suffering from insanity will be completely
exempted from any form of criminal responsibility. Though there are some criteria which are
needed to fulfil before the implementation of section 84 i.e.3

1. The accused must be in some state of unsound mind while the action is taking place

Based on the various cases, the courts must decide the unsoundness and the inability to
understand the nature of the crime committed. In the case of Madhya Pradesh v

1
Greenawalt Kent, 'Distinguishing Excuses from Justifications' [1986] 49(3) Law and Contemporary Problems
89-108.

2
Questions on Unsoundness of Mind an Exception to Offence, [Link]
unsoundness-of-mind-general-exception-ipc/.

3
Saikia D, “Insanity Defense in Criminal Law in India”
<[Link]
 Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998 4, the Supreme Court refused to grant an exemption to an
epileptic person. It was clearly inferred from the evidence that the person was aware of his
acts and sensed at the time of the commission of the crime and just had an ill will against the
deceased, and the crime was committed in a planned framework. In the case of Sheralli wali
Mohammed v. the State of Maharashtra5 , exhibiting the accused's mental instability at the
time of the offence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for them to get protection
under Section 84 of the IPC. Simply engaging in compulsive behavior is ineligible.6

2. The person committing the act should not be aware that the act committed by him is
contrary to the law

A person to get the required defence of section 84 should have impaired cognitive faculties,
due to which he would be unable to distinguish between the right and the wrong act and the
act committed by him should be prohibited by the law. In the case of Laxmi v State 7 , the
drug addict Laxmi, after assaulting the stepbrother, fled the spot. The court had held as Laxmi
fled from the spot after the commission of the act would not be liable as he could understand
the nature of the act committed and not deprived of the reasoning power to distinguish
between right and wrong.

Most civilized nations like India realize the defense of insanity and the inability of some
individuals to conduct the act in a sane state of mind. At the same time, there are some
specific states like Montana, Idaho, and Utah in the United States of America that have
abolished insanity as a defense 8

PERSPECTIVES OF INSANITY: - LEGAL INSANITY AND MEDICAL INSANITY

4
Madhya Pradesh v Ahmadulla, (1961) AIR SC 998
5
IR 1972 SC 2443, 1972 CriLJ 1523, (1973) 4 SCC 79, 1973 (5) UJ 204 SC
[Link]
6
tephen J Morse, ‘Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered’ (1985) Faculty Scholarship Paper
1355 <[Link] accessed 11 May
2020.
7
AIR 1959 All 534, 1959 CriLJ 1033 [Link]
8
Safiyat Naseem, ‘Insanity Defense: A loophole for Criminals?’ (Writing law)
<[Link]
>accessed 8 May 2020.
The concept of insanity is not a mere medical one but also a legal concept, but both are linked
to each other. Understanding this concept in greater depth means that each person who is
mentally ill by that fact itself would not be exempted from criminal responsibility. Any
person suffering from a medical disorder is said to have medical insanity, but when a person
suffering from a medical disorder also has impaired cognitive facilities and is incapable of
knowing whatever they are doing is contrary to the law is called legal insanity in the
landmark case of Hari Singh Gond vs State of Madhya Pradesh.9 It is argued that there
should be a distinction between legal and medical insanity. The court is concerned with only
legal insanity and insanity has no one precise definition; the nature and the meaning of
insanity change according to the different contexts. In the case of Bapu Gajraj Singh vs the
State of Rajasthan10, it was held that mere partial delusion, fits of insanity, or any form of
compulsive behaviour does not provide any form of protection under section 84 under the
IPC. Lastly, through Surendra Mishra versus the state of Jharkhand 11 it was held any of
the persons who seek the defense of insanity must prove legal insanity and not mere medical
insanity. Thus, the accused's prior mental health history, his mental state at the time of the
Act and the circumstances that occurred right after that shed light on his mental state all-
inclusive decide the punishment that the accused must face and if the accused can take the
defense of the same.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF INSANITY

The origins of insanity may be traced back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and insanity
has been reflected throughout Plato's writings. He has outlined some of the fundamental
characteristics of Legal insanity.

 Plato recognized that the mentally ill, like children, should not be punished for
unintentional deeds because they lack awareness of the consequences of their actions
and the requisite intent for a criminal conviction.
 Plato, through his work, also talked about how the defence of insanity should be
raised using a plea by only the defendant and his attorney
9

10
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2007) AIR SC 996

11
Surendra Mishra versus the state of Jharkhand 2005 (4) JCR 439 Jhr
  Plato also talked out that the concept of financial restitution should be used as a
remedy to the offence, and it should be used to settle down the case in a fair manner

Insanity may be traced back to 1324 in the United Kingdom. If a person who had committed
an offence were judged mentally unfit at the time, the courts would allow them to flee to their
home or hold them in prison until they were awarded the royal pardon. In 1880 there was a
revisit to the concept of insanity due to the famous incident of James Hadfield's attempt
Assassination of King George III. In the year 1800, James field tried to shoot the then King
George III during the commencement of the national anthem in the royal box. Hatfield
Missed his target, and as soon after that, he pleaded to the Royal Highness King George 3
that he thought very wisely of him and, because of his state of mind, was unable to
understand the consequences of the actions he committed, the three doctors admitted the
same. This case has led to the development of the Insane Delusion Test

A few more cases of similar nature then grabbed the attention of the public, and due to the
disapproval of people, the various tests to analyse the concept of insanity were developed
Different studies have been developed over the years to evaluate the presence of a reasonable
state of mind in a person when they are committing a crime. The following are the numerous
tests available for declaring someone legally insane: - The "capacity to discriminate between
good and wrong" test, the "wild beast" test, and the "insane delusion" test. All of these
testing’s led to the development of the fundamental Mc Naughten Guidelines.

THE 'WILD BEAST' TEST

One of the oldest tests to check insanity is the wild beast test. The wild Beast test originated
in the famous case of R v. Arnold12 in 1724; Arnold was tried for wounding and making an
attempt to take the life of Lord Oslow. The actions of the defendant showed his mental
derangement and his inability to understand his actions. This test describes a man who
suffers. From mental derangement and who is deprived of understanding and does not know
the difference between right and wrong is no more than an infant or like a wild beast; this
person should also never be the object of punishment.13

12
R v. Arnold [1992] 2 SCR 208

13
Anthony Platt, ‘The Origins and Development of the "Wild Beast" Concept of Mental Illness and
TEST OF CAPACITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG

The mentally ill people find it extremely difficult to differentiate between good and evil
further; before the evolution of this test, it was held that any person who is mentally ill should
not be punished through the legal system.
In the year 1616, the test then had narrowed that only those people who were considered
idiots would be exempted from this criminal responsibility. Further, it was laid down that a
person would be considered an idiot if they could not
(1) Count up to 20
(2) Recognize his parents
(3) Acknowledge that the actions taken were useful and not harmful 14

MC NAUGHTON RULES

In previous years, the various tests to consider a person insane or not relied on the concept of
whether the person could distinguish between what is wrong and right. However, all this
changed in 1843, after the landmark case of MC Naughton took place.

In 1843, the landmark case of Daniel Mc Naughton 15took place. Herein, the defendant, the
NGRI, suffered from "Morbid Delusion", and he was persecuted from many people,
including the prime minister of England. The Mc Naughton believed that the prime minister
was using his carriage, and under this thought, he shot at the carriage. During that time, the

Its Relation to Theories of Criminal Responsibility’ (1965) 1(1) 1-18 Issues in Criminology 11

14
Richard Moran, 'The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James

Hadfield (1800)' (1985) 19(3) Law and Society review 487-519

15
Asokan TV, “Daniel McNaughton (1813-1865)” (Indian journal of psychiatryJuly 2007)
<[Link] accessed October 30, 2022
carriage was being used by the Prime minister's secretary, Mr Edward Drummond, who died
due to the incident during the arrest Mc Naughten also claimed that he had been arrested by
the Tories in the city who were following and abusing him at whichever place he went the
jury had unanimously held that the defendant was not guilty because of the reason of insanity.
After this case, the need for determination of the four essential determinants of insanity was
laid down.16

A formalized set of rules were established. The four essential principles of the MC Naughton
Test are, therefore:-

(i)  Every individual is deemed to be sane and to have a sufficient degree of reason to
be liable for his crimes until and unless it is proved the contrary 

(ii) To establish an insanity plea, it must be demonstrated that, at the time of

(iii) He should have been unaware that his actions were illegal and criminal under the
law.

(iv) Where a person suffers from an insane delusion as to existing facts and commits
an offence; as a result, the judges indicated that the response must rely on the
nature of the delusion; however, assuming that he suffers from a partial delusion
only and is not insane in other respects, he must be considered in the same form as
one considers a person with responsibility as if the facts about which the delusion
exists were actual.

16
Insanity Defense Pros and Cons | [Link]. [Link]
17
Insanity as a defence under the Indian Penal Code - iPleaders. [Link]
indian-penal-code/
18
M'Naghten rule | definition of M'Naghten rule by Medical dictionary. [Link]
[Link]/M%27Naghten+rule
One of the most salient features which were bought through by the Mc Naughton's Rule was
that if a person is aware of his action, he must know the distinction between right and wrong
Acts; these rules also states that if there is some delusion faced by the accused, then they will
only be charged with those acts/ offences that they are aware and can understand they are
doing

CRITICISM OF THE MCNAUGHTON RULE

A criticism of the M's Naughton Rules is that these rules give rise to numerous problems of
interpretation as well as these rules are not a good test of criminal responsibility.
1. It has been established that if a person does not understand the difference between
right and wrong, he must be insane, but this raises questions about those
circumstances in which people know what is right. Yet, they feel compelled to do the
wrong thing and then take the defence of insanity to get away with it.
2. The McNaughton rule only gives a legal definition of insanity, not a medical one.
There are some cases of insanity which are transient. Those conditions are not
highlighted under these rules
3. Many people have also contended that the McNaughton Test is based on misleading
concepts and that insanity affects both the cognitive faculties and the personality of a
person, including the emotions and the will of the people.

INTERPRETATION OF INSANITY AS DEFENSE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

All countries have abolished the Law of Insanity as a result of the current misuse of this
defence. Countries like Germany, Argentina, Thailand, and many English counties have
already given up on such defence. I the misuse of this defence in a number of instances where
violent offenders have been exonerated on the grounds of insanity undermines the core tenet
upon which the legislation was based.

SWEDEN AND THE ABOLITION OF INSANITY

In the year 1965. The Sweden had decided to completely abolish the Insanity as a defence
and also eliminate it from their legislation. They had introduced a new legislation to cater to
all the mentally ill individuals under the compulsory psychiatric act the major aim of this
legislation was to strengthen the legal safeguards, restrict the use of defence of insanity to
commit crimes continuously further this also aimed to increase the opportunities for the
people who were detained and imprisoned. They hoped that all the imprisoned would get
sufficient medical care and aid on a regular and voluntary basis.19

Through the chapter 30 article 6 of the Sweden penal code it can be seen that In Sweden the
mental illness is not a defence but only when a person has a “severe mental disorder” they
wont be imprisoned. A mental disorder will be considered severe and of grave concern when
a person suffering from the same experience depression and psychosis. 20

In Sweden any mentally ill offenders will be only be committed to the psychiatric institution
to take care if they are not sent to the prison. This is to ensure that a person who is suffering
from mental illness does not re-offend the crime and to assess the person before his release .

There is a large number of question which have arose about the approach which the Swedish
courts have used. In Sweden every person who is suffering from some mental disorder and
commit a guilty offence has to visit the psychiatric institutions irrespective of the fact that
here is no treatment available for the offence they committed secondly at times some people
might also be suffering from some mental disturbance which might be transient and might not
persist for long intervals henceforth this approach might help by reducing the offences
committed by the criminals and then taking the defence of insanity but this also suffers from
major issues which should be looked and reformed.

INSANITY LAW AND USA

Many countries provided a broader scope for the defence of insanity for the countries like
USA. The United States of America believe that the insanity is an essential element under
their constitution and of great importance too. The united states of America exempted those.
Acts which were done as a result of impulse reactions. Here the actions committed in the spur

19

20
“Insanity Defence : A Loophole for Criminal” (Vidhikarya)
<[Link]
%20DEFENCE%20AS%20A%20LOOPHOLE%2D%20CONCLUSION,-In%20the%20present&text=It
%20is%20impossible%20to%20prove,are%20subject%20to%20critical%20offense.> accessed October
30, 2022
of the moment has been excluded from the criminal responsibility. Only those crimes
committed after prolonged contemplation would be liable under this act.

The product test is a test where any of the unlawful act is product of mental disease or the
defect according to the same the defendant would be held criminally responsible only and
only if the act committed was a result of the mental diseases suffered by him

In the famous case of Parson V. State2122, a wife and daughter were charged with fatally
murdering their husband/father. Both defendants admitted to being insane throughout their
combined trial. The defendants were convicted guilty of murder with malice aforethought by
the jury at the trial stage.

By a vote of 5 to 4, the US Supreme Court ruled in Eric Michael Clark v. Arizona23 that a
defendant cannot be declared insane under Arizona law unless he can show that at the time of
committing the crime, he was suffering from a severe mental illness or defect that prevented
him from understanding that what he was doing was wrong. The initial portion of the Insanity
defence stated in the M'Naghten case was omitted in the State of Arizona's 1993 amendment,
which resulted in the introduction of the modified form of the defence.

The American Legal Institute (ALI), provides that a person would not be responsible for the
criminal conduct . The Ali test focused on the defendants understanding of his conduct and
on the defendants ability to control the set actions. The Ali test which is used in USA is a
combination of both the McNaughton Rule and the irrestible impulse test. 24

Henceforth through the ALI test the USA has focused on the Insanity as a valuable defence.

INSANITY AS A DEFENCE IN INDIA –

21

22
Parsons v. State - 160 Tex. Crim. 387
23
Clark v. Arizona, (2006),  548 U.S. 735
24
Kent Greenawalt, Distinguishing Justifications From Excuses, 49 Law and Contemporary Problems 89-108
(Summer 1986) [Link]
The Indian law has a broader view on the subject of insanity than what the English position
holds. At the present times,25 it is believed through the eyes of Section 84 of the Indian Penal
code that human beings are morally responsible agents, and they do not cause harm they
would behold criminally accountable for their actions, and their acts should contain at least
two of the essential elements (a) a person committing an offence (b) the person had acted out
of his own free will.

The jurisdictional aspects of the defence of insanity have been shaped through the occurrence
and the decision on various landmark cases. In the case of Ashiruddin Ahmed v The King,26
it was seen that The accused performed the alleged conduct, namely, causing the death of his
son by slitting his throat. Still, he could not comprehend that his AActwas improper due to
mental insanity. Hence the court had decided to acquit the accused person in this case; the
court had also made an essential differentiation between the terms' wrong' and 'contrary to
law'. But in. the case of Geron Ali Vs Emperor, 27
it was held that the words erroneous and
contrary to the law should be looked at together and be considered as a test for insanity. 28

In the case of Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat, the supreme court had
tried to determine the applicability of section 84; the Supreme court had held that to attest the
insanity of a person, one needs to look at the circumstances that preceded the actual
commission, of the act the mental condition which led to the commission of the show and
also looks at the events and occurrences that followed the happening of an event.
Insanity

BURDEN OF PROOF

25
Shrivastava S, “PLEA OF INSANITY AS A DEFENCE” (law and journal library )
<[Link]
%2Fsupami15&div=12&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals> accessed October 30, 2022

26
Ashiruddin Ahmed v The King, 1949 CriLJ 255.

27
Geron Ali v Emperor, ILR (1940) 2CAL329

28
Feuerstein S, “(PDF) the Insanity Defense - Researchgate”
<[Link] accessed October 30,
2022
Under the law, everyone is considered to be wise to be responsible for their actions to obtain
and get the defence of insanity under the Indian penal code, the burden of proof to prove that
at the point of commission of a crime, the defendant was legally insane lies on the defendant
and not the prosecution. The defendant is also required to submit some written documents to
testify that he was unable to understand the nature of the act committed at the time was
wrong according to law. Further in the case of Anandrao Bhosale v. State of
Maharashtra29 it was held by the high court of Maharashtra had that the period in which the
unsoundness must be proven and the responsibility to verify the same with the party seeking
the benefit of Section 84 i.e the defendant. Further in the case of TN Lakshmaiah v. State of
Karnataka30 it was held by the apex court that the sole responsibility of the defendant is
satisfy the remedial action of the defendant. If the defendant is able to show all these things
then the case is bound to be decided in his favour. 31

THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY AS MERE SHIELD

The defence of insanity exists as a general defence in order to allay with the concerns which
are stemmed from a broader social derangement and the neglects this section of people which
generally include the person who are unable to understand the nature of the act they
committed. The defense of insanity is majorly present to protect the interests of the criminals
but many of the times these are used who protect the brutal criminals and help them escape
the punishment. The formulation of the defence itself is one of the primary reasons for the
exploitation of this defence because of the same reason their countries like Germany
Argentina England which has decided not to include the protection of insanity under their
legal system. The major problem that arises and has been arising from the various scholarly
writing's on the topic is that there's no clear line which gives a distinction between sanity and
insanity they are differently interpreted by different medical and legal professionals across
29
Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 7 SCC 748

30
TN Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka 2001 Supp(4) SCR 200

31
Shrey Singh [Link] “Insanity as a Defence in IPC - Law SAMJHO
Article” (Law SamjhoMarch 16, 2020) <[Link]
accessed October 30, 2022
various other jurisdiction on this lack of uniformity in accepted they said method of insanity
pave the way for complexities . 32There is a lot of reform work needed and as the same is not
present it leads to a lot of problems . there has been a lot of distinctions present between the
medical and the legal insanity due to which there is fewer institutionalization and also there is
no one single definition of an unsound mind.33

There have been some efforts which have been from different times and the uniform test of
culpability has been developed but in the countries like India with a humongous population
its extremally challenging to follow the same and in India there should be progressive
approach that should be used for the application of the concept of the unsound mind. The
commission of india has however stated some reforms might be detrimental and can affect
and lead to some medico – legal concerns 34

CONCLUSION

Henceforth from the above held discussion that the section 84 i.e. the defence of insanity in
the criminal law is only applicable at the time when there is unsoundness of mind during the
commission of a certain offence. There are some relevant factors that does effect and helps to
insanity of a person at the commission of an offence which includes the state of his mind
before and after the commission of the act, further the Absence of any motive, absence of
secrecy, want of pre-arrangement.

The defence of insanity have also become a loophole in the criminal law because to prove the
mental status of the accused has a very high probability of getting misused. Furthermore

32
LAKSHMI RAJ C, “Probono India” <[Link]
%20Raj-CAN%20THE%20DEFENCE%20OF%20INSANITY%20BE%20A%20LOOPHOLE%20FOR
%20CRIMINALS-B2-NATIONAL%20UNIVERSITY%20OF%[Link]%20LEGAL
%20STUDIES,%[Link]> accessed October 30, 2022

33
Pandey P, “Insanity Defence: A Loophole for Criminals” (Law Times JournalSeptember 2, 2020)
<[Link] accessed October 30, 2022

34
Upadhyay RK, “Defence O F Ins Anity U Nder Indian Legal System : An Analysis - IJEMR” (Defence of
insanity under indian legal system)
&lt;[Link] accessed
October 30, 2022
even any medically insane individual should not be acquitted from his criminal responsibility.
This defence has helped the violent culprit to evade from criminal responsibility but at the
same time to remove such as an important defence in its totally is unjustifiable. Some of the
major reforms are required under these provisions and henceforth the law regarding the
defence of insanity should be changed and the accurate distinguishing must be made between
a sane and an insane person 35

The evolution of the defence of insanity since antiquity, as well as its literary critics and what
may be done to keep up with modern times, have all been highlighted in this essay.
Consequently, through this paper readers have more time to reflect and formulate thoughtful
queries.

35
Vaniprabha M, “The Insanity Defence ~ an Analysis with Specific Reference to Section ...” (International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention)
&lt;[Link] accessed October 30, 2022