The Author, Parth Verma, is a 1st year BBA LLB student at Christ University, Bengaluru. He is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

Abstract

Under Criminal Law, Insanity as a defence has always been a very fascinating and to some extent ambiguous aspect under the General Exceptions. While it might be only an excuse or a defence in case of a Criminal Trial, it has a possibility of being misused as there is no fixed extent or way to determine the insanity of a person. Its subjectivity is the very reason that makes the study of this defence all the more important. To provide fair justice over the years, its scope has been defined through various tests and laws that have been laid down. 

So, what is meant by Insanity? How did this defence arise in Indian Penal Code? In what cases does it act as a valid defence? This article aims to determine the answers to all these and many other questions.

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 is a collection of codified laws which define the punishments for different criminal offenses. At the same time, Part IV of the Indian Penal Code describes the various exceptions to these criminal offences. The Part IV of IPC ranges from Section 76 to Section 106 and comprises of the various general exceptions from the acts of a minor to the unsoundness of mind of the persons.

Section 84 specifically discusses about Insanity or in a broader manner the unsound mind of an individual while committing a crime. This section in brief explains that any act committed by a person of an unsound mind will not be actionable and they won’t be held liable for any offense while being in the state of insanity. The burden to prove the insanity would rest upon the defendant (one who claims this defence) to prove that he/she wasn’t able to understand the consequences of his/her act and couldn’t distinguish between right or wrong owing to lack of a sound mind. Hence, the presumption under this defence would be that the person was sane or of a sound mind while committing the offense and the contrary would need to be proved by the Defendant.

Though the word or the meaning of ‘Insanity’ has not been explicitly stated in this section of Indian Penal Code (IPC) yet it focuses on its aspects in a broader term by describing the exception of the ‘Unsoundness of Mind.’ The concept of Insanity has been long known to the world and came into prominence from the 1700s with the various tests that emerged from there which will be discussed in the next section.

The test laid down in the case of R v Mc’Naughton (1843)[1] is currently followed under Section 84 of IPC in India. Apart from the Mc’Naughton’s Test there are several other tests as well such as Wild Beast Test and Insane Delusion Test. However, the Mc’Naughton’s Test has several important points of the other tests and hence would be very important with respect to determine the state of mind of an individual. This test has been the guiding light for determining the liability of a person of an ‘Unsound Mind’ and hasn’t been modified since the time it was incorporated.

Background of the Defence of Insanity

The defence of Insanity as stated earlier finds its origins in the formal legal systems from the beginning of the 18th Century. Various tests have been laid down to determine whether a person had an unsound mind while committing the criminal offense. These tests are as follows.

1) Wild Beast Test

The first test regarding the law of Insanity was laid down in the case of R v Arnold[2]. In this particular case, the Defendant had committed the offence of attempting to kill and wound Lord Onslow who would be the Plaintiff in this case. However, he claimed that he was facing the delusion that he was being oppressed by the Plaintiff and couldn’t eat or drink anything due to the fear. As a result, it was held that sufficient proof of his unsound mind was available and hence he won’t be held liable in this case. Justice Tracy further went on to elaborate upon this point of view and laid down the legal standards for insanity. Though Arnold was still held guilty in this case, yet the test laid down became the foundation stone based on which several other tests were derived.

This case eventually led to the derivation of the ‘Wild Beast Test’ for determining the Insanity of a person. As per this test, if a person due to his unsound mind is not able to distinguish between right and wrong and doesn’t have the knowledge of the adverse consequences or nature of his/her act, he/she won’t be held liable even if they had committed the gravest of the offences. Hence the ingredients for insanity under this test are:

a) Lack of knowledge to distinguish between right and wrong

b) Lack of knowledge of the adverse consequences/nature of the act

However, this test had a few drawbacks. It failed to consider the fact that total deprivation of the sound mind of person is far too severe to determine the liability of a person i.e. no person can always have a completely unsound mind. These standards also failed to exempt children and animals who won’t have the necessary malice as well.

2) Insane Delusion Test

Later on, the test laid down in the case of James Hadfield (1800)[3] rejected the concepts laid down in the ‘Wild Beast Test.’ The law declared by the Court in this case was contrary to the Judgement given in the case of R v Arnold. In this case, Mr. Hadfield was removed from the Army because of his unsound mind and later he attempted to assassinate King George III. He felt that the Second Coming of Jesus would take place if he himself would be killed. Therefore, he attempted to kill the King so that it leads to his own execution as the punishment. He fired at the king but missed and hence was tried for high treason. 

Thomas Erskine, Hadfield’s Counsel pleaded the defence of insanity on the part of the Defendant because he was suffering from delusion. This was also proved by the surgeons that the delusion was caused due to the previous head injuries. Further, there was no malicious intention or hostility of the Defendant towards the King. Erskine also went on to say that it is not necessary that a person should be completely unsound or deprived of their mental capacity to declare their insanity and that:

a) Partial Insanity can also act as a defence in case of the criminal offence. 

b) It focuses on ability to distinguish between right and wrong and its direct relation with insanity. 

This test laid down in this case came to be known as ‘Insane Delusion Test’ which particularly focused on the ability to distinguish between right and wrong to determine the Insanity of a person. This test was much more accurate and reasonable in comparison to the ‘Wild Beast Test’ and brought in certain modifications that aimed at providing fair justice. However, this test also didn’t provide a very broad standard of punishment.

3) Bowler’s Case

The third test laid down in the Bowler’s Case (1812)[4] wherein further developments were made to distinguish between right and wrong. Persons who can’t understand the consequences of their wrongful acts or can’t distinguish between right and wrong would be considered as persons of unsound mind and would enjoy the immunity in case of any offense committed by them. However, later on the Mc’Naughton’s test made several changes or modifications to this test and is currently followed all over the world. 

4) Mc’Naughton’s Rules

The test laid down in the case of R v Mc’Naughton (1843)[5] is the most extensive and the most accurate test to determine whether the defence of insanity applies or not. In this case, Daniel Mc’Naughton was under the insane delusion that the Prime Minister at that time Sir Robert Peel was the sole reason of all his problems. Hence, he decided to kill the Prime Minister. However, he mistook the Personal Secretary of the PM Mr. Edmond Drummond to be the Prime Minister and subsequently killed him. 

He tried to plead the defence of Insanity as he didn’t have the knowledge of the adverse consequences of his act and also couldn’t distinguish between right and wrong. The Fifteen Judge Bench was constituted in the House of Lords to decide upon this case and while giving the judgement they laid down some rules that came to be known as the Mc’Naughton Rules which were as follows:

  1. If a person has partial delusion and could understand to a reasonable extent what is right or wrong, he/she won’t be able to plead the defence of insanity.
  2. There is a presumption that the person committing the criminal offense is sane or prudent and knows what he is doing.
  3. To establish the defence of Insanity, the Defendant must prove that at the time when the offense, the state of mind of Defendant was such that he/she weren’t capable to determine the consequences of their acts.
  4. If the person has sufficient medical knowledge and is familiar with the state of Insanity, he/she aren’t allowed to give their opinion and it’s upon the jury to decide and determine the various questions of law.

This test is currently followed in India and also in several other countries as it is very comprehensive in itself and gives a strict definition of Insanity in Legal terms. Though efforts were made to change these rules with time, yet these have not been modified in India till yet and are followed just like they were from the very beginning.

5) Irresistible Impulse Test

This test was laid down in the 19th Century. It was based on the concept of moral insanity which meant that a person can act with an unsound mind even for temporary periods and are otherwise sane persons. This conduct is involuntary on the part of the Defendant and generally arises spontaneously in a given situation. As a result, they can’t be held liable even if they are generally able to comprehend what is right and what is wrong generally.

The liability in this case can also generally vary as per different facts and circumstances of the case. It is generally seen to be a variation to the Mc’Naughton Rules but had several criticisms of its own due to which more importance is given to Mc’Naughton’s Rules worldwide.

In the case of Parsons v State (1887)[6], the court held that though the Defendant was prudent and generally had the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, he lost his power to choose the same under the duress of mental disease at the time of the incident.

These were the general tests that have been laid down over the years. From all these, while some aren’t followed currently, the rules laid in Mc’Naughton’s case still hold a lot of relevance and are widely followed.

Position In India

In India, the Mc’Naughton Rules are followed in the Insanity Law. The general exception of Insanity has been stated in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The term ‘Insanity’ though has not been defined in the section, yet all provisions have been stated under the concept of the ‘Unsoundness of Mind’ that is a broader term with Insanity only being a component of it.

It has been stated under this section that a person who committed a wrongful act won’t be held liable if he didn’t have the knowledge of the nature of his act or couldn’t distinguish between right or wrong due to the unsound mind. The elements under this section are as follows:

  1. Act must be done by a person of unsound mind
  2. The person must also be unsound at the time of committing the offence.
  3. Person must not be capable of distinguishing between right and wrong
  4. Person should not be aware of the nature of his act only because of the unsoundness of mind

The burden of proving the Insanity is always on the accused and the presumption is that the accused is a sane and a prudent person. Even a mentally ill person ipso facto (by the very fact) might not be exempted from criminal liability because he might be insane in medical terms but not in the legal terms. This further led to the distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity of a person.

In the case of Hari Singh Gond v State of Madhya Pradesh[7], the court clearly held that the term ‘insanity’ doesn’t have a clear definition in itself. The court is only concerned with the legal insanity of a person. While a person might be of unsound mind in terms of medical insanity, he might be sane in the eyes of law and hence won’t enjoy this defence in this case. Therefore, even a person is ipso facto mentally ill, they are not exempted from their liability if they are considered to be sane in the eyes of law.

The person should also have an unsound mind at the time of the commission of the crime which becomes necessary to determine their liability. However, the insanity before and after the commission of the crime is also very important to determine the liability of the person.

In the case of Ratan Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh[8], the Defendant had put the grass in the land of Plaintiff Nemichand to fire. He didn’t have any malicious intention as such and was proved to be a Lunatic under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. As a result, he wasn’t held liable in this case and availed the defence of Insanity in the trial court. However, the same case was appealed to the High Court that reversed the trial court’s decision and held the Defendant guilty. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it observed that a lunatic person would come under the purview of section 84 as they are also facing ‘Unsoundness of Mind.’ Further, it was also stated that the the mental condition of the person should be directly related to the offense and should also not be remote in time. Therefore, the court gave it’s reasoning on the basis of:

  1. Medical evidence provided for proving insanity
  2. Unsoundness of mind of Defendant on the day of the accident caused

The Irresistible Impulse Test as given earlier is not followed in India because it doesn’t fall within the ambit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. A person won’t be absolved from his/her liability if they only had an irresistible impulse to commit an offence but could distinguish between right and wrong.

In the case of Ganesh Shrawan Chaudhary v State[9], the court declared that a murder committed due to an irresistible impulse even if there is no proof of any actual motive, won’t exempt the person from the liability. He/she would be held liable in the same manner as it would have been even if the malicious intention would have been involved. The accused was held liable for death sentence and wasn’t exempted due to the irresistible impulse.

In another case of Pappathi Ammal v Unknown (1959)[10], the defendant who was a mother was accused of killing the child and attempting to commit suicide when she jumped into the well on her known with her child. It was later determined through the evidence that she was sleep walker and this incident was caused owing to the same. The defendant’s counsel aimed to avail this defence of Insanity under the Section 84 of IPC. The sessions court gave the decision against the Defendant stating that Somnambulism or Sleep Walking won’t exactly fall within the ambit of Section 84 as it won’t reflect the unsound mind of the person.

However, Supreme Court was of the reasoning that Insanity focuses on ability or capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. If the Somnambulism led to such an issue that was there in this case, it would fall well within the purview of Section 84. As a result, the Defendant that is the mother in this case would be exempted from the liability.

Therefore, the validity of the Irresistible Impulse Test varies on a case-to-case basis but generally in India as seen through the various case laws the Mc’Naughton Rules are followed. Insanity in the legal terms may be very different from that of medical terms and this distinction will be shown in the next section.

Legal Insanity and Medical Insanity: Comparison and Contrast

In a case in the Criminal Court, the insanity of a person is going to be considered in the legal terms and not the medical terms. The basic difference between them is that while every type of insanity in the medical terms might not be acceptable as a defence in the eyes of law i.e. it might not be classified under section 84 as Legal Insanity. It is a narrower concept of Medical Insanity as all types of Legal Insanity are included under medical insanity whereas the vice-versa is not true.

In other words, if through the existing facts of the case the person has committed a criminal offense and was said to be insane from the medical point of view, he may or may not be given the immunity under section 84. The Jury has the right to decide whether the person is of an unsound mind under Section 84 and it is not going to be evaluated in the medical terms. Medical Insanity doesn’t mean that a person in of an unsound mind. He/she might still have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong and to be fully informed about the consequences of their acts.

For Example, a person A might be having some adverse mental condition but could lead a normal life by taking medication from a doctor. In this case though he could be mentally unsound in medical terms yet he won’t be given the legal immunity in case of any offense committed because he still has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. There can be several classifications under Medical Insanity some of which might not come under the purview of Legal Insanity. These are as follows:

1) Lunatic

2) Non Compos Mentis -Person with an unsound mind

3) Intoxicated (Involuntarily)- Voluntary intoxication won’t be included

An offence carried out by Voluntary Intoxication won’t provide the immunity to the person from being held liable and they would still be liable for committing that offense.

In the case of Ajay Mahakud v The State[11] at the High Court of Orissa, it was declared by the Court that a person who is mentally diseased may not get an ipso facto exemption from criminal liability. The accused would still need to prove his/her insanity at the time of the incident to absolve their liability. A distinction is to be made by the Court between Legal Insanity and the Medical Insanity.

Therefore, it can be stated that in several cases a person might be declared medically insane in case of hallucination or other illnesses but in the legal terms they won’t enjoy any immunity. While in some cases this might not create any problems but in others, it may not provide fair justice to those who suffer from such illnesses but won’t be able to plead the defence under Section 84 as it doesn’t fall under Legal Insanity.

Essentials of Legal Insanity

1)  Incapacity to know the Nature of the Act

Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), this means that the state of mind of the accused was such that he/she was not able to decipher the consequences that may arise through their acts. They are not able to determine the effect that their act may have generally. This is caused due to the unsound mind of the individual that makes him completely unaware of the consequences.

  1. Incapacity to Distinguish between Right and Wrong

This means that a person even though has the knowledge of the nature of the act could be exempted from the liability if they can’t distinguish between right and wrong at that point of time. This lead to the development of the concept of partial insanity wherein a person could be exempted from the liability even if he/she was aware of the nature of their acts.

  1. Damage to the Person

Since a crime is generally committed against a person which affects the entire society as a whole, the damage must be suffered by the society as well as the actual sufferer. This damage must be a direct consequence of the criminal act and apart from payment of damages to the sufferer, some punishment is imposed by the State in the form of imprisonment or compensation according to the quantum of the crime committed.

Conclusion

Insanity as a defence plays a very important role in protecting the interests of those who don’t have the ability at the right time to determine what is right and wrong. However, at the same time it has a possibility of being misused by the people as unsoundness of mind can also have several aspects related to it.

It becomes a very subjective defence at times and depends largely upon the discretion of the jury. In some cases, they might exempt a person despite he being not unsound to such an extent that the nature of the act can’t be deciphered. In others, a person may be held liable even when he/she was genuinely facing mental illness leading to unsound mind at that time.

There is a need to ensure that some scope or extent is defined for the use of discretion by the Jury for which reasonable standards are required to be established. For this, there is a need to modify the Mc’Naughton Rules as the existing essentials or provisions keeps it open to a lot many interpretations and the personal discretion enters as a result.

Further, there is also a need to clearly define certain terms so that there is no ambiguity with respect to the provisions relating to them. There might be some cases covering certain aspects of insanity that till then have not been included in Section 84 a such as Somnambulism or Sleep Walking as observed in the case of Pappathi Ammal v Unknown. The reasoning or the judgement of the courts, in such cases should be based on the purpose for which the Section or that provision is introduced.

The ‘Mischief Rule’ of the interpretation of the Statute must be used in such cases to interpret the provisions of Section 84 in the light of the facts presented in the case. According to this rule, the provisions should be applied in such a manner that the best decision is put forward by plugging the ‘mischief’ existing in that case.

There could be a possibility that the various loopholes that exist in the Insanity Law might be exploited by the accused. Hence, it is the responsibility of the Lawmakers to ensure that all the existing gaps that exist in the laws are plugged to ensure fair and equitable justice for all.

Therefore, it can be concluded that on one hand, the laws/rules of Insanity have been a very beneficial to the citizens with unsound minds, but on the other, there is a need to ensure that this is not misused by the people to escape their punishments by plugging all the gaps that exist in these laws.

References

1)Albert J. Hauer, “Insanity - Irresistible Impulse”, Marquette Law Review, Vol 28, Marq. L. Rev. 47, (1944). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/148692518.pdf

2)Ashwinkumar.A, “Judicial Approach on Plea of Insanity in India, Legal Service India E-Journal, Article 3098, (2011) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3098-judicial-approach-on-plea-of-insanity-in-india.html

3) Gary Watson, “The Insanity Defence”, The Law Explorer, (2016)

 https://lawexplores.com/the-insanity-defense-2/

4) Harris, W. T. “A THEORY OF INSANITY.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 21, no. 2, Penn State University Press, 1887, pp. 222–24, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25668136.

5) Bonnie, Richard J. “The Moral Basis of the Insanity Defense.” American Bar Association Journal, vol. 69, no. 2, American Bar Association, 1983, pp. 194–97, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20755324.

6)  Shreya Sharma, “Evolution of Insanity Law in India”, Legal Service India E-Journal, Article 4666, (2021)

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4666-evolution-of-insanity-law-in-india.html

7) R v McNaughton (sic), (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 (UK)

8) R v. Arnold (1724) 16 St. Tr. 695 (UK)

9) R v Hadfield, (1800) 27 St. Tr. 128

10) Bowler's case. 1812, 1 Collinson Lunacy 673       

11) Parsons v State, 1877 81 Ala 577 (USA)

12) Hari Singh Gond v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109 (India)

13) Ratanlal V State of Madhya Pradesh, (1971) AIR 778, (India)

14) Ganesh Shrawan Chaudhary V State, (1969) 71 BOMLR 643 (India)

15) Pappathi Ammal v Unknown, (1959) AIR 1959 Mad 239 (India)

16) Ajay Mahakud v The State (1993) 75 CLT 439 (India)

Picture Source :

 
Parth Verma