Insanity Defence And Ncrmd (Not Criminally Responsible On Account Of Mental Disorder)
I. INTRODUCTION
The insanity defence is a legal principle that recognizes that not every unlawful act can result in criminal liability. If a person commits a crime while suffering from a mental disorder that impairs their ability to understand or control their actions, they may not be held criminally responsible.
In India, this principle is codified under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is of unsound mind, so as not to know the nature of the act, or that it is wrong or contrary to law.”
Such a person may be declared Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD).
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. IPC Section 84
Applies when the accused:
Has a mental disorder at the time of the crime.
Is unable to understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong.
2. CrPC Sections Relevant to NCRMD
Section 328–330 CrPC: Deals with detention of a person found NCRMD.
Section 101, 102 CrPC: Burden on prosecution to prove soundness of mind if defence is raised.
3. Key Concepts
Unsound mind – Not necessarily all mental disorders; must impair understanding of act or wrongfulness.
Mens Rea – Cannot form criminal intent if insane.
Control over Action – Lack of control due to disorder is a factor.
III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INSANITY AND Diminished Responsibility
| Feature | Insanity Defence (IPC 84) | Diminished Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Effect | Complete exemption from criminal liability | Partial defense; may reduce charge |
| Requirement | Unsound mind at time of crime | Impaired mind, but not total incapacity |
| Examples | Psychosis, severe mental illness | Temporary mental impairment |
IV. DETAILED CASE LAW
1. McNaughton Case (UK, 1843)
Principle: Foundation of modern insanity defence.
Facts:
Daniel McNaughton, suffering from paranoid delusions, killed the secretary of a British politician, believing him to be a threat.
Held:
To claim insanity, it must be proven that:
Defendant was labouring under defect of reason due to disease of mind.
Defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act.
Defendant did not know it was wrong.
Importance:
Formed the McNaughton Rules, adopted in India as IPC §84.
2. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
Principle: Knowledge of right and wrong is key in NCRMD.
Facts:
Accused suffering from severe mental disorder committed homicide, claimed insanity.
Held:
Court emphasized ability to understand the wrongfulness of act is central.
Mere mental disorder is not enough; must impair moral and cognitive understanding.
Importance:
Reinforces IPC §84 focus on knowledge of act and wrongfulness.
3. R v. Kemp (UK, 1957)
Principle: Physical illness causing mental impairment may constitute NCRMD.
Facts:
Defendant with arteriosclerosis attacked his wife during an episode of impaired reasoning.
Held:
Disease of mind includes conditions affecting brain function, not only psychiatric illness.
NCRMD applies if mental impairment prevents knowledge of act or wrong.
Importance:
Broadened interpretation to include organic brain disorders.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1998)
Principle: Burden of proof and expert evidence in NCRMD.
Facts:
Defendant accused of murder; claimed insanity during trial.
Held:
Court requires medical/psychiatric evidence.
If insanity is established, accused is not liable for punishment but can be detained in a mental hospital.
Importance:
Emphasizes role of expert testimony and protective custody.
5. R v. Codere (1917, UK)
Principle: Insanity must exist at the time of the crime, not after.
Facts:
Defendant exhibited abnormal behaviour after crime.
Held:
Insanity must be contemporaneous with criminal act to qualify for NCRMD.
Subsequent mental breakdown is irrelevant.
Importance:
Temporal link between disorder and act is critical.
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) (related to NCRMD evaluation)
Principle: Consent and mental testing for NCRMD.
Facts:
Question arose regarding involuntary polygraph and narco-analysis for assessing mental state.
Held:
Coercive testing violates Art. 20(3) and 21.
Assessment of NCRMD must respect rights and dignity of accused.
Importance:
Protects constitutional rights during psychiatric evaluation.
7. R v. Sullivan (1984, UK)
Principle: Distinguishes disease of mind from temporary insanity due to external factors.
Facts:
Defendant attacked his friend during epileptic seizure.
Held:
Epilepsy (disease of mind affecting reason) qualifies for NCRMD.
Not all temporary loss of control counts.
Importance:
Clarifies types of mental conditions relevant for NCRMD.
8. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (2003)
Principle: Detention of NCRMD persons.
Facts:
Defendant acquitted on grounds of insanity; state sought to release immediately.
Held:
NCRMD acquittal leads to detention in mental health facility until fit for release.
Public safety is a priority along with treatment.
Importance:
Ensures society and patient protection.
V. PROCEDURE WHEN NCRMD IS CLAIMED
Accused raises insanity/NCRMD defence in trial.
Court orders psychiatric evaluation.
Expert submits report on mental state at the time of offence.
If NCRMD established:
Acquittal from criminal liability.
Detention in mental health facility under CrPC §328–330.
Periodic review to assess fitness for release.
VI. KEY POINTS
NCRMD = No criminal liability due to mental disorder.
Requires proven unsound mind at time of crime.
Burden of proof = on prosecution to disprove insanity, once defence is raised.
Acquittal does not mean freedom; public safety is considered.
RELATED Blog
comments