AUTHORED BY- Dinesh Gurjar

Mental disorder has remained an unsolved puzzle despite vast study and wholesale literature on various aspects of the subject. The question of insanity is not a question of fact but a legal question of responsibility. “The mind, a superior and distinguished gift of nature to mankind, plays a predicament role in all human actions and behavior. It is, therefore; natural that while considering and assessing the value and nature of any human action emphasis is laid on the working of the mental faculty of the person whose act is judged because nothing undermines general respect for law more than a feeling that the law is arbitrary in assigning guilt. Sec 84 protects the act of a person who at the time of committing act by the reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the actor that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. It embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with guilty intention.) Punishing a person, who is not responsible for the crime, is a violation of 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 following principles were laid down in Sarka gundassa v State AIR 1969 cri. 102, any type of insanity recognized by medical science is not legal insanity and every minor mental aberration is not insanity. There can be no legal insanity unless the cognitive faculty of mind is destroyed as a result of unsoundness of mind to such an extent as to render the accused incapable of knowing the nature of the act. (Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra 2002 Cr LJ 4356) the Supreme Court while determining an offense under Section 84 of IPC opined that “it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record” which would prove that the Appellant, in that case, was suffering from the said condition.

Background of the Insanity Defense

Mc Naughten Rules

The foundation of this law was first laid in the Mc’Naughton case by the House of Lords in 1843 along with a special committee of judges. Mc’ Naghten had killed Mr. Drummond, the P.S. of Sir Robert peel, the then P.M. of England Mc’ Naughten was under insane delusion that sir peel had injured him and again was going to injure him. So, one day, mistaking Drummond for sir peel he shot and killed him. During his trial, his counsel pleaded that due to insanity the accused wasn’t able to know that he was violating the settled laws. In support, the medical report was produced which showed that the accused was laboring under a morbid delusion which carried him away beyond the power of self-control. The accused was ultimately acquitted on the ground of insanity. Indian law recognized English law on insanity by replacing insanity with a more extensive term unsoundness of mind. Later mc naughten test was criticized because the rules only refer to the state of mind at the time of committing the act and held it the obsolete principle that partial insanity is possible. The crucial point of time when unsoundness of mind has to be proved is the time when the crime is committed. (Ratan Lal v State of MP AIR 1971 SC 778), If at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused knew the nature of it he cannot absolve the liability of the offending act. (Amrit Bhusan v Union of India AIR 1977 SC 608). In addition to mc naughten rules, some other tests were also introduced Durham rule and irresistible impulse test.

Legal and medical Insanity

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code also considers only legal insanity and does not incorporate medical insanity. Every minor mental aberration is not insanity. From the legal point of view if a man can draw a line between right and wrong then he would be held sane. A person may become violent on slight provocation. Such a person cannot escape from the culpability of their actions on the ground of not being aware of what he had done or ignorant of the repercussions. (Ramachandra v State of Kerala).

If the fact shows that the accused knew that he had done something wrong it did not matter how, though he might be insane from the medical point of view, he will not be exempted under section 84 IPC. (In Re Pappathi Ammal’s case. AIR 1959 Mad. 239). Doctors exist to cure physical and mental ills, Judges and Jurists exist to guard the life, property, and welfare of society.

The burden of proof in Insanity

The burden of presumption of innocence lies on the accused who pleas insanity as a defense. Every man is presuming to be sane and responsible for his actions until the contrary is proved to satisfaction of the court. As per illustration a) of section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, A accused of murder, alleges that, because of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A. Though the burden of proving insanity on the accused is not as heavy as the burden on prosecution, is akin to the burden of proof on a party in civil cases (N.Dhondiba v State of Maharashtra 1985 Cr, Lj 449).

The circumstances from which inferences can be drawn regarding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the act are motive, deliberation, desire for concealment, effort to avoid detection, conduct false statements. (Raghu Pradhan v State of Orissa, 1993 Cr Lj 1159 (ori) (DB).
In a Prominent supreme court case of Dahyabhai v State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563, the apex court laid down the following propositions.

The burden of proving the guilty mind of the accused always lies on prosecution from beginning till the end.

There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane when he committed the crime.

If evidence adduced before the court establishes reasonable doubt in the mind of the court, the same would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of the doubt and the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.