DR.RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW (U.P.) Session- 2015-2016 Subject: Psychology-2 Final Project On “Insanity Defense in Indian legal Prospective” SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY Ms. Isha Yadav Shobhit S Awasthi Assistant Professor (Psychology) Roll no- 130 Sec- B Dr RMLNLU Lucknow U.P. 2nd sem. BALLB.(hons) Signature – 1 for the timely and valuable information provided by them in their respective fields. [SHOBHIT SAINESH AWASTHI] 2 . monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this Project. Lastly. I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher for the subject Ms Isha Yadav Ma’am for giving me such a challenging topic and also for her exemplary guidance. I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college for their cordial support. my family and friends for their constant encouragement without which this assignment would not have been possible. which helped me in completing this task through various stages. I am grateful for their cooperation during the period of my assignment. I thank almighty. valuable information and guidance. 18 INTRODUCTION 3 .)………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………….11 Case laws ( In Indian legal prospective.3 Defence of unsound mind…………………………………………………………………………3 Common disorders found in prison inmates………………………………………………………5 Mc’Nagthen rule…………………………………………………………………………………..INDEX: Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………....9 Position in other countries.8 Legal and Medical insanity distinguished…………………………………………………………8 Kinds of insanity………………………………………………………………………………….6 Unsoundness of mind…………………………………………………………………………….17 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..12 Conclusion and suggestions……………………………………………………………………...... Where a man is totally deprived of his understanding and memory and does not know what he is doing. that the accused. or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 4 . is incapable of knowing the nature of the act. it becomes difficult to define insanity leading to the absence of mens rea. he will properly be exempted from the punishment of the law. mental abnormality. His capacity to know things is perverted. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who. (3) knowledge of facts upon which the good and evil of an act may depend. (4) knowledge that the act is prohibited by law. In order to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 84. The actor must possess the following conditions (1) free will. by reason of unsoundness of mind. disease of mind etc. DEFENCE OF UNSOUND MIND Crime is a voluntarily act which is an outcome of an intent to cause an evil consequence There are certain essentials of crime.. because of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. Act of a person of unsound mind.It is referred to as lunacy or unsound mind. viz. There being no standard of insanity. So a person incapable of entertaining such intent cannot incur legal guilt. three elements are necessary any one of which must have to be established by the accused.) If insanity is to be regarded as immunity first of all it must be clearly explained as to what it is. the act was wrong. It is called non compose mentis. The fundamental principle is that mens rea (guilty mind) is an essential element in every offence and no crime can be said to have been committed if the mind of the person doing the act is not guilty. (2) intelligence to distinguish between good and evil. or secondly. at the time of doing it. the act was contrary to law or thirdly. an insane person cannot think and act as a normal human being. (possessed of a sound mind.Section 84 Indian Penal Code. Analogous Law Chapter XXV (sections 328-339) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 deals with procedure to be followed where the accused is a lunatic or of unsound mind. paranoid behavior. hallucinations. Drummond. Bipolar Disorders Emotional highs (mania). the Lords submitted certain questions respecting the insane person. angry outburst. lack of emotion. There are various tests to determine if a person’s insanity can be used as a defence. thus a man who becomes insane after committing a crime cannot be tried until his mind becomes sound and similarly an insane person cannot be hanged. Right and Wrong test. feelings of impending doom. Depression Feeling down. The most famous test is the MacNaughten test. suicidal thoughts. the Delusion test. loss of interest in everyday activities. the Good and Evil test. Common disorders found in prison inmates Schizophrenia. It has been the policy of the law to give immunity from criminal responsibility to insane persons as their actions are not governed by their will. impulsive behaviour. in 1843. Examples are the Wild Beast test. Criminal law divides insane persons into two classes: a) those over whom the threats and prohibitions of criminal law would prove futile and b) those whose form of insanity is only such that ‘they would not have yielded to their insanity if a policeman had been at their elbows’. made famous in the case one MacNaughten who killed Mr. 5 . It is only insanity of a particular kind that gives exemption from responsibility. the private secretary of Sir Peel in mistake of that statesman. severe psychosis episodes that cause delusions and hallucinations.The Court held him not guilty on ground of insanity. On account of severe public dissatisfaction. crippling lows (depression). Delusions. it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the crime. but in regard to the particular act committed. 2. and does not require the necessity of defining insanity. is also based on the Mc'Naghten rules. Mc'Naghten. until the contrary is established. Every person is presumed to be sane. the person was so insane as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it. The advantage of using the words ‘unsoundness of mind’ is that it covers mental defects of all kinds known to medical sciences. is incapable of doing the act. not in the abstract or in general. These principles have been incorporated in the penal codes of almost all the countries in the world. 1860 s. by reason of unsoundness of mind.Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it. The test of wrongfulness f the act is in the power to distinguish between right and wrong. Mc'Naghten Rule In 1843 the law of insanity was more properly formulated by the house of lords in the historic case of R v. or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary in law. 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. To establish the defence of insanity. 84. The English law on insanity is based on the Mc'Naghten rules and the Indian Law that is codified in the Indian Penal Code. 3.The Indian law is substantially the same as that laid down by MacNaughten’s rules. Principles Laid Down In Mc'naghten Case: 1.” Principles For The Application Of This Section: 6 . Insanity Under Ipc And Cr Pc. he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. The burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused. The incapacity of the person must have existed at the time of commission of the act. Unsoundness Of Mind: 7 . 3. 5. Essential Ingredients Of The Section Ingredients of Section-84: Act must be done by a person of unsound mind. c. In reaching such a conclusion. and 6. 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. Such a person must be incapable of:a. 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. The court shall presume the absence of such insanity. 2. The act was contrary to law. b. Knowing the nature of the act. The court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when the offence was committed. 4.The following principles are to be kept in mind in applying this section: 1. attended or followed the crime are relevant consideration. That the act was wrong. the circumstances which preceded. though it is not as heavy as the prosecution. Every type of insanity is not legal insanity. 8 . Legal And Medical Insanity Distinguished: It is in the case of every person pronounced to be insane according to medical science to be excused? No insanity for the purpose of criminal law differs from that in the medical sense. 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. It is not every type of insanity which is recognized medically that is given the protection of this section. But it must be proved in such cases that at the time of commission of the offence. 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 law. The test in law is simply. they sometimes can plan better and even execute it even with more care. An insane person is not punished because he does not have any guilty mind to commit the crime. This section only deals with incapacity of mind which is a result of „unsoundness of mind' or „insanity'. every case of mental abnormality is insanity. only a few are legally insane. The insanity should be of such a nature that it destroys the cognitive faculty of the mind. So amongst all the medically insane persons. The faculty of reasoning and judgement is also considered. We judge a man's responsibility with regards to his mens rea. He as a normal man plans the crime. But it has been equated by the courts to mean insanity. 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. This section will apply even in cases of fits of insanity and lucid intervals. whether because of his insanity he is incapable of possessing mens rea. only they can be excused. The law propounds a different test from that in the medical field. According to medical experts. He knows what he is doing is wrong. it is considered as insanity in law. It is only where the insanity destroys the cognitive faculty of mind. Medical insanity is different from legal insanity.The term unsoundness of mind has not been defined in the code. the accused was surfing from a fit of insanity which rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act. A survey of the case law reveals that the courts are influenced more by the facts of the case and the nature of crime. Annoyance And Fury: Irresistible impulse. 4).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. This is called cognitive insanity. 1). but may be under a delusion in respect of one particular idea. Law group's insanity into two broad heads. Insanity As Result Of Smoking Ganja(weed) Or Heavy Intoxication: Where insanity is caused by excessive drinking even involuntary or by smoking ganja or other drugs. 2). 3).“an individual who becomes insane after birth”. this section cannot be invoked. rather than any formal evidence as to the kind of insanity that the accused is suffering from.“individuals that are insane from birth”. Here the victim actually becomes a tool in the hands of the disease. mental agitation. 1) Dementia naturalis. Irresistible Impulse. 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. namely. will constitute unsoundness of mind and the accused will get the benefit under this section. such insanity will also amount to unsoundness of mind. Mental Agitation. and 2) Dementia adventitia or accidentialis. 9 . annoyance and fury all merely indicate loss of control and not indicative of soundness of mind. The Bombay and the madras high courts have held that for a person who is not insane but is suffering from hallucination. Hallucination Or Delusion: Hallucination or delusion is a state of mind where a person may be perfectly sane in respect of everything. Somnambulism: Somnambulism is the unconscious state known as sleep walking and if proved. The accused can take shelter under this section. 5).1973 unsoundness of mind comes under section 464 and 465. nor was nay material produced to establish the ground of insanity. 5). he may ask a medical officer to examine the person and postpone the trial of the case. Excessive Or Unusual Violence: The brutality or the ferociousness of the act by itself cannot lead to the conclusion of insanity. 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. 6). In order to determine whether the conduct of the accused was an insane act. Lack Of Motive Or A Trifle Matter: The absence of a strong and adequate motive to commit such a serious offence like murder is not by itself a proof of insanity. one must look beyond or outside the act or crime itself for evidence as to how much the accused acted with knowledge. The fact that the accused caused the death of a person over a trifling matter will not by itself warrant a conclusion that he was insane. Crime cannot be excused by its own atrocity. when no plea of insanity was taken before the trial court. Insanity Under Criminal Procedure Code: Under the Criminal Procedure Code. incapable of making his defence. 10 . But the absence of a motive may be taken into consideration along with other circumstances of a case to determine the question of sanity or otherwise of the accused. It says that when a magistrate while conducting an inquiry feels that the person is of unsound mind and consequently.If it makes a person incapable of understanding what he is doing or that he is doing is something wrong or illegal. if he can prove that the insanity existed at the time of the commission of the act. or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. Most of the states have adopted the right and wrong test. 11 . 2). The existence. 10 of the Swiss Penal Code states that „any person suffering from a mental disease. 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. character and extent of insanity are ordinarily questions of the fact for the jury. Insanity Under The English Law: The English law is also based on the Mc'Nachten rule. as not to know the nature and quality of the act or omission. as set forth by the House of Lords in the leading case of McNaughten in 1843. then such a person is not in law responsible for his act. Underhill's Criminal Evidence has the following to say: Insanity is everywhere a defence to a charge of crime.Position In Other Countries 1). Insanity Under Swiss Law: Section. 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 commission or omission of which would otherwise be criminal. 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'. from the disease of the mind. Insanity Under American Law: In regards to defence of insanity in the United States of America. The authorities are not agreed on the legal test for determining insanity. 3). for without a sound mind there can be no criminal intent. was labouring under such a defect of reason. such as is described by sec 84. Then again. State Of MP V. Judgement: In these circumstances the Supreme Court rejecting his plea of insanity. art. Ahamdullah Subject: The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was. Case Laws ( In Indian Legal Prospective). 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'. the proper punishment for the heinous and premeditated crime committed with human brutality would have been a sentence of death. 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. there was a mood of exultation which the accused exhibited after he had put out her life. Facts: In this case the accused had murdered his mother in law to whom he bore ill-will in connection with his divorce. IP code lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. convicted the accused of the offence of murder (setting aside the acquittals of both the session court and the high court). Insanity Under The Law Of France: Penal Code of France. But taking into the account the fact that the accused has been acquitted by the session's judge. at the crucial point of time. 12 .4). Ayyangar J said thus: In the normal case. 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.It 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. 84. It said that in determining whether the accused has established his case under the purview of Indian Penal Code. 435.Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar V. The Supreme Court held that the person was insane and acquitted him. The psychiatrist of the hospital reported that the accused remained silent. The accused raised the plea of insanity at the trial court. The crucial point in this case was whether unsound mind may be established at the time of commission of the act. 302 for the murder of his wife. The relevant facts are motive for the crime. State Of MP The appellant on 22 January 1965. Ratanlal V. the state of his mind at the time of the offence. The report declared the accused to be a lunatic in terms of the Indian Lunatic Act. set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of Nemichand. On being asked why he did it. 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. s. „the court has to consider the circumstances which preceded. He was referred to a mental hospital. 1860. the previous history as to mental condition of the accused. The crucial point of time for determining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. s. and needs treatment. and the events immediately after the incident that throw a light on the state of his mind'. The accused killed his wife with wife by inflicting her with 44 knife injuries on her body. attended and followed the crime. do whatever you want'. The accused was arrested on 23 January 1965. 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. State Of Gujarat In this case. the accused said. „I burnt it. The accused made an appeal to the Supreme Court. This conviction was confirmed by the high court. was a case of maniac depressive psychosis. the accused was charged and convicted under the IPC. 13 . 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. State In this case. Hazara Singh was under a delusion that his wife was unfaithful to him. Medical evidence showed that he knew what he was doing and had the ordinary knowledge of right and wrong. In the present case. being disturbed by those thoughts.Hazara Singh V. Similarly everyone is also presumed to know the law. 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. Further on the date of the occurrence many children were playing including his own cousin sister. Every one is presumed to know the consequences of his act. 14 . there is evidence that up to the time of occurrence he (accused) has been doing with his cultivation. he would be entitled to be acquitted. Undoubtedly. 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 caused her death by pouring nitric acid over her. 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. He was convicted for murder. Before the commission of the crime he did not beat any person. it is for the prosecution to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. Bhikari V. 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. 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. An insane person could not have done so like a sane person. few months before occurrence the accused admittedly picked up quarrel with mangali and Bhaiya Lal and had given threats to make their family extinct. These are not facts that the prosecution has to establish. On the other hand. Once that is done a presumption that the accused was sane when he committed the offence would arise. One day. that one person by the name ajjappa (victim) had quarrelled with her over the purchase of goods. 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. Tukappa Tamanna Lingardi V. while in such fits. the person complained against by the woman. Held: death sentence was upheld. the sister of the accused reported at the police station that he had come to banda weekly bazaar on that day.. State Of Maharashtra In a Bombay case a woman. The ASI of police who was on duty could not follow the language of the woman who was accompanied by the accused. he used to say that a tiger was coming to eat him or to kill him. If transpired in the evidence that he accused had the fits of lunacy and. though he was fully recovered and there was no reason or justification to continue his detention in the jail. 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. Lastly. the ASI sent a constable to bring the PS.This shows that he did not act under the influence of insanity but only with some previous deliberation and preparation. 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. 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. for selling potatoes and onions and further. which was Monday. The result was that the petitioner continued to rot in jail for a further period of ten years. 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. But in the presence of the said constable suddenly the accused attacked the deceased and beheaded him. 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. It is further in evidence that he had given threats to the witnesses. 15 . On the date of the offence. soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December. he used to get up and run away under the stress of fear from the tiger. the high court held that the accused was entitled to the protection of section 84. the appellant was wandering in the forest of a heavy sickle (pal koyta) expecting a tiger to come. he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to the hospital. 1994. However she was said to have committed the act with the knowledge that the death was likely to be caused thereby. 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. 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. The cause of ailment was not known – but heredity plays a part. 16 . Within a short span. The plea of insanity was thus proved. Baijanti V. The accused used to have sleepless nights and if at all he was asleep. After a thorough analysis of the evidence and circumstances. Hence the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained. The appellant was also being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 and was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The And the fact of the killing in day light shows that no attempt to hide or run away was made. Srikant Anandrao Bhosale V. 302 to one u/s 304 for committing the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. IPC.He used to hear the voice of the tiger and used to refuse to take his food. Hence her conviction was altered from u/s. 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 appellant was also under regular treatment for the mental ailment. State Of Maharashtra In the present case the accused was found guilty of committing murder of his wife. The Mc'Naghten rules is based on the entirely obsolete and misleading conception of nature of insanity. at the time and after the commission of the offence. 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 provision is regarded as too narrow. 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. 84 gave its opinion in the negative due to the complicated medico-legal issue it would introduce in trial. IPC. s. the Mc'Naghten rules have become obsolete and are not proper and suitable in the modern era. The appeal was thus dismissed in the higher court and the accused was convicted for murder. 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.Babasaheb Thombre V. 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. 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. and makes no provision for a case where one's emotion and the will are so affected as to render the control of the cognitive faculties 17 . 84 only exempts one whose cognitive faculties are affected. The accused pleaded insanity as a defence and stated that he was suffering from schizophrenia. However. 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. 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. The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report after considering the desirability of introducing the test of diminished responsibility under IPC. emotion and will. Conclusion And Suggestions The Indian Law on insanity is based on the rules laid down in the Mc'Naghten case. s. There are three compartments of the mind controlling cognition. R P Kathuria. “Indian penal code”. 4th ed. 1st ed.. “Principles of Criminal Law”. “Criminal Law”. This provision is much broader and is better suited for the defence of insanity. 18 . vol. 5th ed. 2005. (2nd Ind.. 2nd ed. s.)..).... (2nd Ind. 10 states that „any person suffering from a mental disease. “Criminal Law”. Rep. 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'. The researcher submits that the defence of insanity is too narrow and must be amended to suit the present demands. 19th ed. “outlines of criminal law”. PSA Pillai. vol 1. “ Indian penal code”.. 9th ed. K S N Murthy and K V S Sarma.ineffectual. “Supreme court on criminal law”. John Kaplan and Robert Weisberg. ND Basu. 2002. 1996. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal. 1991. 2007.3. 2006. J W Cecil Turner. 29th ed. 2001. Rep.. “criminal law”. 9th ed. Bibliography: Books Referred: P Srivastava. Swiss Penal Code. idiocy or serious impairment of his mental faculties. The Indian Government may also look at the provisions of the other countries relating to insanity. 2004. The Courts must also adopt a broader view of the Insanity and introduce the concept of diminished responsibility.