Insanity Defence In Indian Criminal Law
I. Legal Provisions: Section 84 IPC – The Insanity Defence
Section 84 IPC states:
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."
Key Points:
The person must be suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the act.
This condition must make the person incapable of:
Understanding the nature and quality of the act, OR
Knowing that the act is wrong or unlawful.
The test is cognitive and focuses on the accused’s mental capacity at the time of the offence.
The defence, if proved, results in complete acquittal due to lack of criminal responsibility.
II. Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
1. McNaghten's Rule and Indian Law
The basis of the insanity defence in India largely follows the McNaghten’s Rules (originating from English law, 1843), which focus on the cognitive incapacity of the accused.
2. Rex v. Arnold (1724) (English case)
Though English, this case heavily influenced Indian courts:
Established that insanity must render the accused incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act or knowing it was wrong.
3. Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab (1954) AIR 130
Facts:
The accused was charged with murder but was found to be mentally unsound during the act.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that Section 84 protects only those who are legally insane at the time of the offence.
Mental disease must be such as to totally deprive the accused of the understanding of the nature of the act or its wrongfulness.
Mere mental infirmity or moral weakness is insufficient.
4. Kohli Ram v. Emperor (1932) AIR 266
Facts:
The accused committed a murder but claimed insanity.
Holding:
Court stated that the test for insanity under Section 84 is whether the accused was suffering from such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act.
It is not necessary that the accused be unable to distinguish between right and wrong in the abstract but must not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong.
5. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010) 13 SCC 678
Facts:
Accused charged with murder claimed he was insane at the time.
Holding:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden lies on the accused to prove insanity at the time of offence.
Medical evidence is crucial, but ultimate decision is judicial.
The court emphasized on the cognitive incapacity: accused must be unable to understand the act or its wrongfulness.
6. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts:
Accused claimed insanity after committing an offence.
Holding:
The Court held that legal insanity is different from medical insanity.
Not all mental disorders amount to legal insanity under Section 84.
The focus is on whether the accused was incapable of understanding the act or that it was wrong.
7. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Although not directly about Section 84, this case emphasized:
The importance of scientific and medical evidence in assessing the mental state of the accused.
The court underscored the necessity of psychiatric evaluation and expert testimony.
8. Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra (1992) AIR 2106
Facts:
Accused killed his wife but claimed to be insane.
Holding:
Court accepted the defence based on evidence that he was mentally unsound at the time.
Noted that unsoundness of mind must be a disease or defect affecting mental faculties relevant to the offence.
III. Burden of Proof
The burden lies on the accused to establish insanity as a defence.
Standard of proof: preponderance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt).
Medical/psychiatric evidence plays an important role.
Courts may also consider conduct before, during, and after the crime.
IV. Summary Table of Key Principles and Cases
| Principle | Case | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive incapacity is essential | Iqbal Singh (1954) | Accused must be incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act |
| Legal insanity ≠ Medical insanity | State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) | Not all mental disorders qualify for defence |
| Burden on accused to prove insanity | Sanjeev Kumar (2010) | Accused must prove insanity at time of offence |
| Importance of expert evidence | Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) | Psychiatric evaluation critical |
| Defect of reason caused by disease | Kohli Ram (1932) | Must totally deprive reason regarding nature or wrongfulness |
V. Practical Application
Insanity defence is rare and used only in severe cases.
Courts scrutinize evidence closely.
If successful, accused is acquitted but may be confined to a mental institution.
Unsoundness must be present at the exact time of the offence.
Temporary insanity or diminished responsibility is usually insufficient.
VI. Conclusion
The insanity defence in Indian criminal law balances justice and humanity — protecting mentally ill persons from criminal culpability while ensuring only genuine cases benefit. Judicial interpretation has made the defence strict but fair, requiring clear proof of cognitive incapacity at the time of the offence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments