Insanity Requirements

• There is a well-established principle, “Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit
Rea,” which, in the literal sense means, an act does not make an offender
liable without a guilty mind. The Intention or guilty mind (Mens Rea) of the
offender is an integral part while committing a crime. The defence of
insanity is a law that protects a person who is incapable of understanding
the nature of the act done by him.

• The unsoundness of mind should be of such an extent that it makes the

offender completely incompetent in knowing the nature of the act. The
factor that the person is suffering from a mental illness is by itself not
sufficient to prove that he is insane. Under Indian law, the rationale of
insanity as a defence is incorporated in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, and is based upon the “Mc’Naughten’s Rule.” The burden of proof is
always on the defendant, and it has to be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report, made an effort to
reanalyze Section 84, but no modifications were made.
Wild Beast Test
• The first case which dealt with the law of insanity was R v. Arnold (1724), in which
Edward Arnold attempted to kill and even wound Lord Onslow and was tried for
the same. The evidence clearly showed that the accused was suffering from a
mental disorder. Tracy, J. observed:

• “If he was under the visitation of God and could not distinguish between good and
evil, and did not know what he did, though he committed the greatest offence,
yet he could not be guilty of any offence against any law whatsoever.”

• As stated in the aforementioned case, a person can demand immunity if, due to
his unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of distinguishing between good and
evil and did not know the nature of the act committed by him. This test is known
as the “Wild Beast Test.”
Insane Delusion Test
• The second test evolved in Hadfield’s case (1800). Hadfield was discharged
from the army on the ground of insanity and was tried for high treason in
attempting to assassinate King George III. The counsel of the accused, Lord
Thomas Erskine, defended him and proved in front of the judge that
Hadfield only pretended to kill the King and is not guilty, on the ground of
insane delusion from which the accused was suffering.

• Erskine stated that insanity was to be determined by the fact of fixed

insane delusion and that such delusion under which the defendant acted is
the main reason for his crime. This test was known as the “Insane Delusion
Test.”
Mc’Naughten’s Rule
• Finally, the third test was formulated in Bowler’s case (1812). In this case, Le Blanc, J. stated
that the jury has to decide when the accused committed the offence, whether he was
capable of distinguishing right from wrong or under the control of an illusion. After the
Bowler’s case, the courts have placed more emphasis on the capacity of the accused to
distinguish right from wrong, though the test was not that clear.

• There have been several tests from time to time, like the Wild Beast Test, Insane Delusion
Test, etc. But the most important is the “Right and Wrong Test” formulated in M’Naughten’s
case.

• The hearing of M’Naughten and his release was a topic of discussion in House of Lords, and
as a consequence, they called upon fifteen judges to decide on the question of criminal
liability in the cases where the accused is incapable of understanding the nature of the act
and also answered the questions advanced. Fourteen judges had the same answers. The
view of the majority was given by Tindal C.J., these answers to the questions are known as
M’Naughten’s Rule.
 • The following principles were cited:

1. If the person knew what he was doing or was only under a partial
delusion, then he is punishable.
2. There is an assumption that every man is prudent or sane and
knows what he is doing and is responsible for the same.
3. To establish a defense based on insanity, it must be ascertained, at
the time of perpetrating the act, the accused was in such a state of
mind as was unable to know the nature of the act committed by
him.
4. A person who has sufficient medical knowledge, or is a medical
man and is familiar with the disease of insanity cannot be asked to
give his opinion because it is for the jury to determine, and decide
upon the questions.
English Law on the Defence of Insanity
• English criminal law considers insanity a valid defence of crime. The fundamental definition of
insanity is based on the M’Naghten Rules. These rules are not about insanity medical definitions.
• In M’Naghten’s case, the judges declared the following insanity principles:

1. All are presumed to be sane and to have enough reason, until proved contrary, to be responsible
for their crimes.
2. It must be clearly demonstrated in order to establish the defence of insanity that at the time of
the act, the accused was working under such a defect of reason, from mental illness, as
3. He didn’t know the nature and the qualities of the act he was doing, or
4. He did not know what he was doing was wrong.

The accused must, therefore, prove on the basis of the facts that he was suffering from a defect of
reason caused by mental illness in an effort to argue insanity, because either he was unaware of the
nature and quality of the act, or he had not realized that his actions were wrong.
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.
Indian Law on the Defence of Insanity
• For this defence, the following elements are to be established-
1. The accused was in a state of unsoundness of mind at the time of
the act.
2. 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.’
• 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.
Distinction between Legal and Medical
Insanity
• Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code sets out the legal responsibility
test as distinguished from the medical test. It can be observed that
the absence of will arises not only from the absence of understanding
maturity but also from a morbid state of mind. This morbid mind
condition, which provides an exemption from criminal responsibility,
differs from the medical and legal point of view.
• According to the medical point of view, it is probably correct to say
that every person, when committing a criminal act, is insane and
therefore needs an exemption from criminal responsibility; while it is
a legal point of view, a person must be held to be the same as long as
he is able to distinguish between right and wrong; as long as he
knows that the act carried out is contrary to the law.
• It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that “mentally ill” people and
psychopaths are unable to seek immunity from a criminal case, as it is their
responsibility to demonstrate insanity at the time the crime was
committed. So in practice, not every person who is mentally ill is exempt
from criminal liability. There has to be a distinction between legal insanity
and medical insanity. “
• Arijit Pasayat and the Bench of Justices, DK Jain, stated while upholding the
life conviction of a man who cut off his wife’s head. The mere abnormality
of mind, partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of a
psychopath does not provide protection from criminal prosecution as
provided by the apex court held Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Bench stated that Section 84 of the IPC, which provides immunity from
criminal prosecution to persons of unsound mind, would not be available
to an accused, as the burden of proving insanity would lie with them, as
provided in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence.
Burden of proof in insanity defense
• Under law, every man is presumed to be sane and assumed to
possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts
unless the contrary is proved.
• Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his
act. Similarly, every person is also presumed to know the law. The
prosecution does not have to establish these facts.
• In insanity defense, there are two aspects of proving an offense,
which are as follows:
1. Commission of crime and
2. Insanity defense.
Burden of proof in insanity defense
• The burden of proving the commission of an offense is always on the prosecution, and that never
shifts. The prosecution has to prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt.
• However, the onus of proving the existence of circumstances (Section 84 IPC) for insanity defense
would be on the accused (Section 105 of the Evidence Act) and the court shall presume the
absence of such circumstances.
• The accused has to prove by placing material before the court such as expert evidence, oral and
other documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence,
satisfying that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was
doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
• The Supreme Court have ascertained that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind
should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving
this, lies on the appellant for claiming the benefit of the Section 84 provision.
 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of
Gujarat (1964)
• In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker versus state of Gujarat, this court has held that even if the
accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the
offense, the evidence placed before the court may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offense, including mens rea of the accused
and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general
burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.
• Though the burden is on the accused, he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable
doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The burden of proof casted upon
him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.
Motivation for a Crime
• Mere absence of motive for a crime and howsoever atrocious the
crime may be, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity,
cannot bring the case within the ambit of Section 84 IPC.
• Also the fact that the accused made no attempt to run away from the
crime scene, would not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not
have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offense.
• Further, the Supreme Court have clearly stated that the mere
abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or
compulsive behavior of a psychopath affords no protection under
Section 84 IPC.
Plea of insanity
• The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused, hence the plea
of insanity should be taken by the accused or by his lawyer or his family
members or previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an
honest investigating officer to subject the accused to a medical
examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not
done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit
of doubt has to be given to the accused.
• Hence, the plea of insanity should be taken during the investigation or
during the trial in the lower court not during the appeal to the higher court.
• Insanity
• Loss of Reasoning Power
Assessment of other evidences to ascertain reasoning
power of the defendant during the commission of
crime
Role of Psychiatrist
• A standard evaluation procedure of all patients who plead insanity defense
is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate that till 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:

• Certifying the presence or absence of psychiatric illness if the defendant

claims for an insanity plea (defendant's mental status when the alleged
offense took place);
• 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 (defendant's
present mental status and his competence during adjudication).
• Psychiatrist should consider inpatient
admission for a comprehensive
evaluation of the defendant.

• It is the duty of the psychiatrist to

educate the court, clarify psychiatric
issues, provide honest and objective
opinions based on factual data and
sound reasoning. Forensic psychiatry
assessment proforma, a modified
version of the Kumar et al. 2014
• This NIMHANS Detailed Workup
Proforma for Forensic Psychiatry
Patients-II is used in the Institute since
many decades for semi-structured
assessment of forensic psychiatric cases.
This proforma is modified periodically as
per the clinical evaluation and legal
requirement.
Case Laws
• In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the
Supreme Court observed that Section 84 sets out the legal test of
responsibility in cases of alleged mental insanity. There is no
definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC. However, the courts have
mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term
‘insanity’ itself does not have a precise definition. It is a term used to
describe various degrees of mental disorder. So, every mentally ill
person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal responsibility. A
distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical
insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, not medical insanity.
Case Laws
• In the case of Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, it was pointed out
that ‘every person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto exempt
from criminal liability.’
• Furthermore, in the case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of
Maharashtra, the Supreme Court, in determining the offense under
Section 84 of the IPC, held that’ it is the totality of the circumstances seen
in the light of the recorded evidence’ that would prove that the offense
was committed.’ It was added: “The unsoundness of the mind before and
after the incident is a relevant fact.”
• Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or
compulsive behavior of a psychopath affords no protection under Section
84 IPC (Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan)
Unsoundness of mind must be at the time of
the commission of the Act
• The first thing a court to be considered when defending insanity is whether the
accused has established that he was unsound at the time of committing the act.
The word “insanity” is not used in Section 84 of the penal code.

• In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P, it was well established by the court that the crucial
point of time at which the unsound mind should be established is the time when
the crime is actually committed and whether the accused was in such a state of
mind as to be entitled to benefit from Section 84 can only be determined from
the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed the crime. In other
words, it is the behavior precedent, attendant and subsequent to the event that
may be relevant in determining the mental condition of the accused at the time
of the commission of the offense but not those remote in time.
• In Kamala Bhuniya v. West Bengal State, the accused was tried for
her husband’s murder with an axis. A suit was filed against the
accused, she alleged to be insane at the time of the incident, the
investigating officer recorded at the initial stage about the accused’s
mental insanity. The prosecution’s duty was to arrange for the
accused’s medical examination, it was held that there was no motive
for murder. The accused made no attempt to flee, nor made any
attempt to remove the incriminating weapon.
• Failure on the part of the prosecution was to discharge his initial
responsibility for the presence of mens-rea in the accused at the time
of the commission of the offence. The accused was entitled to benefit
from Section 84. And hence accused was proved insane at the time of
the commission of the offence and was held guilty of Culpable
Homicide and not of Murder.
Incapacity to know the nature of the act
• The word “incapacity to know the nature of the act” embodied in
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code refers to that state of mind when
the accused was unable to appreciate the effects of his conduct. It
would mean that the accused is insane in every possible sense of the
word, and such insanity must sweep away his ability to appreciate the
physical effects of his acts.
Incapacity to know right or wrong
• In order to use the defence of insanity under the latter part of Section 84, namely “or to do
what is either wrong or contrary to the law,” it is not necessary that the accused should be
completely insane, his reason should not be completely insane, his reason should not be
completely extinguished. What is required, is to establish that although the accused knew
the physical effects of his act, he was unable to know that he was doing what was either
“wrong” or “contrary to the law.”
• This part of Section 84 has made a new contribution to criminal law by introducing the
concept of partial insanity as a defence against criminal insanity. However, as a practical
matter, there would probably be very few cases in which insanity is pleaded in defence of a
crime in which the distinction between “moral” and “legal” error would be necessary. In
any crime, insanity can undoubtedly be pleaded as a defence, yet it is rarely pleaded except
in murder cases. Therefore, in a case, this fine distinction may not be very useful for the
decision.
• The Indian penal code has advisably used either “wrong or contrary to the law” in Section
84, perhaps anticipating the controversy.
Irresistible Impulse as a defence
• Irresistible impulse is a sort of insanity where the person is unable to
control his actions even if he has the understanding that the act is
wrong. In some cases, the Irresistible Impulse Test was considered to
be a variation of Mc’Naughten’s rule; in others, it was recognized to
be a separate test. Though the Irresistible Impulse Test was deemed
to be an essential corrective on Mc’Naughten’s selective perception,
it still had some criticisms of its own.
Under Indian Law
• Usually, when there is adequate capacity to distinguish between right and wrong,
the mere presence of an irresistible impulse would not excuse liability. Irresistible
impulse is not incorporated under insanity because it does not fall within the ambit
of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

• In the case of, Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya v. State of Kerala (1967), it was
held that to claim an exemption under section 84, the insanity has to be proved, at
the time of the commission of an act, mere losing of self-control due to excitement
or irresistible impulse provides no defence under Indian law even if this is proved in
a court of law.

• In another case, Ganesh v. Shrawan (1969), it was observed that the mere fact that
the murder is committed by the accused on an irresistible impulse, and there is no
identifiable motive for the commission of the act, can form no grounds for
accepting the defence of insanity.
• In 1884, the irresistible impulse test was introduced by the legislation. By
1967, this test was applicable in 18 states out of 51 states of the U.S.A.
Irresistible impulse when, attributable to a diseased mind, appears to have
been identified as a legitimate excuse in some English cases.

• Irresistible impulse as a defence was developed in the famous case of

Lorena Bobbit (1993), on June 23rd, 1993, the defendant took a knife from
her kitchen and wounded her husband by cutting off his penis while he was
sleeping. Her lawyers contended that she had been suffering from
domestic violence, which was perpetrated by her husband during her
marriage, and his husband even raped her before she committed this act.
Though she was well aware of the consequences, she was not able to
control her actions and demanded that she was subject to an irresistible
impulse. The state of Virginia was the first state which used this defence in
its original form. It was held that she’s not guilty as she was suffering from
temporary insanity.
Durham Rule
• The Durham defence is also known as the “Durham rule,” or the
“product test” was established in the case of, Durham v. United
States (1954), the defendant was guilty of breaking into a house and
demanded the plea of insanity in his defence. The existing tests,
which were the Mc’Naughten Rule and the irresistible impulse test,
were declared to be obsolete by the Court of Appeal. But later on, it
was understood that both these tests could still be employed, and the
Durham rule can be used in addition to these tests.
• This defence has two main components:

• First, the defendant must possess a mental disease or infirmity.

Although these words are not explicitly explained in the Durham case,
the language of the judicial view indicates an effort to rely more on
objective, psychological standards, rather than focusing on the
defendant’s subjective cognition.
• The second element has to do with causation. If criminal behavior is
“caused” by the mental disease or defect, then the conduct should be
exempted under the circumstances.
• This test is currently accepted only in New Hampshire, considering it
has been regarded too broad by other jurisdictions.
Concept of Diminished Responsibility
• The Doctrine of Diminished Responsibility was introduced by the Homicide Act of
1957, as a defence to murder. If this defence is established, it will entitle the
offender to be found guilty of manslaughter (culpable homicide) instead of
murder.

• Section 2 of the Act clearly states that:

1. Where a person kills someone or is a party to killing, he will not be guilty of

murder if he was suffering from some abnormality of mind and is mentally
incapable of taking responsibility for his acts.
2. A person who would be liable under this section, whether as a principal or as an
accessory, will be convicted of manslaughter instead of being convicted of
murder.
Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
• The appellant was caught setting fire to the grass in an open land of
Nemichand, when he was asked why he did it, he replied; ‘I burnt it, do
whatever you want.’ The appellant was charged under Section 435
(mischief by fire with intent to cause damage) of the Indian Penal Code.
• According to the psychiatrist, he was a lunatic in terms of the Indian Lunacy
Act, 1912. The report explicitly stated that the accused is:
1. Remains depressed,
2. Doesn’t speak,
3. He is a case of lunatic depression and psychosis, and
4. He requires therapy.
Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
• The trial court held that the accused was not liable to be punished.
An appeal was filed by the state, and the High court reversed the
findings of the trial and held the accused liable for the offence.
Afterward, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, and the conviction
was set aside based upon two major factors:
1. Medical evidence provided and,
2. According to the behavior of the accused on the day of the
occurrence.
• These factors indicated that the accused was insane within the
meaning of Section 84, IPC.
Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of
Maharashtra
• In this case, the accused was a police constable. The wife was hit on the head with a grinding
stone by the accused, and she was immediately taken to the hospital but was found already dead.
After investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of murder. Insanity was pleaded as
a defence.
• The appellant had a family history where his father also suffered from mental illness. The reason
for such an ailment was not known. The appellant was undergoing treatment for this mental
disease. It was observed that the motive for the murder was quite weak. After killing his wife, the
accused did not attempt to hide or run away.

• Based on the above-stated facts, it was held that the accused was suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia, and he was incapable of comprehending the nature of the act committed by him.
Therefore he was not guilty of murder and will be given the benefit of section 84, IPC.
Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration
• Here, the appellant killed a small girl with a knife and even stabbed two
other people, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It
was pleaded by the accused that he was suffering from insanity within the
ambit of Section 84, IPC.

• It was observed that the accused, after being arrested gave normal and
intelligent statements to the investigating officers. Nothing abnormal was
noticed in his behavior. Considering all these findings, the Supreme Court
held that the appellant was not insane at the time of the commission of the
act and was well-aware of the consequences of his acts. He was held guilty
for murder under Section 302, IPC.