Difference Between Medical and Legal Insanity
🔹 Insanity: Medical vs Legal Perspective
Insanity can be viewed in two perspectives:
Medical Insanity – From the standpoint of psychiatry/medicine.
Legal Insanity – From the standpoint of law and criminal liability.
1. Medical Insanity
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Definition | A condition diagnosed by a psychiatrist or medical professional where a person has a mental disorder that affects thinking, mood, or behavior. |
| Focus | Mental/psychological health of the person. |
| Diagnosis | Based on clinical assessment, observation, and medical tests. Includes conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, dementia, etc. |
| Effect on Criminal Liability | By itself, medical insanity does not automatically exempt from criminal liability; it depends on whether it affected the person’s understanding or control at the time of the act. |
| Authority | Psychiatric experts, doctors, hospitals. |
| Example | A person suffering from schizophrenia believes people are attacking them and reacts violently. |
Case Reference (Medical aspect):
R v. Hennessy (1989, UK) – The court recognized diabetes-induced insanity affecting behavior; medical diagnosis is key to determine mental disorder.
2. Legal Insanity
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Definition | A person is legally insane if, at the time of committing the offence, they cannot understand the nature or consequences of their act or distinguish between right and wrong due to a mental disorder. |
| Focus | Legal standard for criminal responsibility. |
| Diagnosis | Based on effect on cognition or volition during the act. Courts rely on psychiatric evidence but decide legally. |
| Effect on Criminal Liability | If legally insane, the person is not criminally responsible (insanity defence under Section 84 IPC in India). |
| Authority | Courts, using medical evidence as support. |
| Example | A person with severe psychosis who kills someone believing they are a demon. |
Key Provision in India:
Section 84 IPC – “Nothing is an offence if a person, due to unsoundness of mind at the time of the act, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law.”
Case References (Legal Insanity):
McNaughton Case (1843, UK) – Laid down the standard: “Defect of reason from disease of the mind, so that the person did not know the nature and quality of the act, or that it was wrong.”
Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab (1960 SC 1261) – Indian Supreme Court applied Section 84 IPC; acquittal possible if legal insanity proved.
R v. Kemp (1957, UK) – Heart disease causing temporary insanity considered for legal responsibility.
🔹 Key Differences Between Medical and Legal Insanity
| Feature | Medical Insanity | Legal Insanity |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Mental illness diagnosed by a doctor | Inability to understand nature/wrongfulness of act at the time of offence |
| Focus | Health & psychiatry | Criminal responsibility |
| Standard | Medical tests, symptoms, clinical history | Legal test: cognition & understanding of right/wrong (Section 84 IPC) |
| Authority | Medical/psychiatric experts | Courts (with expert opinion) |
| Effect on Crime | May or may not affect criminal liability | Can lead to exemption from criminal liability if proven |
| Example | Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder | Killing someone under delusion without understanding it’s wrong |
🔹 Flow Example
Person has schizophrenia → (Medical Insanity diagnosed by psychiatrist).
If they commit murder → Court examines:
Did the illness affect knowledge of act or right/wrong?
If yes → Legal Insanity → Not guilty by reason of insanity (Section 84 IPC).
If no → Medical insanity exists, but liable for crime.
✅ Conclusion:
Medical insanity = mental health condition.
Legal insanity = inability to understand the act’s nature or wrongfulness for criminal responsibility.
Section 84 IPC bridges the gap: medical evidence informs the court, but the legal standard decides responsibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments