Ncrmd Defences
The NCRMD defense is invoked when an accused person commits an offence but lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong due to a mental disorder. This defense is codified under Indian law and reflects the principle that criminal liability requires both actus reus and mens rea.
1. Legal Framework
1.1 Statutory Basis
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 84:
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is wrong or contrary to law, due to unsoundness of mind.”
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 328–329:
Provides for assessment of accused’s mental state and detention in psychiatric facilities.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
Ensures treatment and rehabilitation for mentally ill offenders.
Principle: NCRMD is not acquittal for free—it is exemption from criminal liability; the accused is usually detained in a mental health facility for treatment.
2. Elements of NCRMD Defense
Presence of Mental Disorder
Evidence of psychiatric illness or intellectual disability.
Cognitive Impairment at the Time of Offence
Accused cannot understand the nature of act.
Inability to Distinguish Right from Wrong
The act was morally or legally incomprehensible to the accused.
Causation Link
Mental disorder must directly affect the criminal act.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
1. State of Maharashtra v. S.B. (1965)
Facts: Accused with schizophrenia killed a relative.
Held: Section 84 IPC applies if accused could not understand the act or its wrongfulness.
Principle: Mere presence of mental illness is insufficient; the functional incapacity at the time of the offence must be proved.
2. Raghunath Rao v. State of Maharashtra (1977)
Facts: Accused set fire to house while suffering from severe psychosis.
Held: The court acquitted under Section 84 IPC because he lacked mens rea due to mental disorder.
Principle: NCRMD applies when criminal intention is absent due to mental incapacity.
3. Gopal v. State of Karnataka (1981)
Facts: Accused committed murder but claimed mania at the time.
Held: Psychiatric evidence accepted; he could not understand nature of act, acquitted under Section 84 IPC.
Principle: Psychiatric testimony is critical in NCRMD defenses.
4. R v. McNaughton (1843) – English Precedent (Influential in India)
Facts: Attempted murder by a mentally ill man.
Held: McNaughton rules: To claim NCRMD:
Defendant must have disease of mind
Must be unable to understand the nature of act
Must be unable to know it was wrong
Principle: These rules inform Indian interpretation of Section 84 IPC.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: NCRMD claim linked to compelled confession and narco-analysis.
Held: Court emphasized psychiatric evaluation before NCRMD determination.
Principle: NCRMD defense requires independent psychiatric assessment, not merely self-reporting or procedural claim.
6. State of Punjab v. K.K. (2002)
Facts: Accused with intellectual disability charged with sexual assault.
Held: NCRMD defense accepted; inability to distinguish right from wrong was central.
Principle: NCRMD can apply to intellectual disability and developmental disorders, not only psychosis or schizophrenia.
7. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2015)
Facts: Accused committed homicide while suffering acute psychotic episode.
Held: NCRMD invoked; court directed detention in psychiatric facility rather than prison.
Principle: NCRMD leads to therapeutic justice, focusing on treatment over punishment.
4. Procedural Aspects
Raising NCRMD Defense
Usually by accused or legal representative during trial.
Assessment by Psychiatric Experts
Court may order examination in a mental health institution.
Recording of Evidence
Psychiatric reports and testimony form primary evidence.
Outcome
If successful:
Accused is detained in psychiatric facility
Periodic review for fitness to re-enter society
If unsuccessful:
Trial proceeds normally.
5. Key Principles from Judicial Interpretation
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mens Rea is essential | NCRMD applies when accused cannot form criminal intent |
| Psychiatric evidence is crucial | Courts rely on expert assessment to determine mental state |
| Not a free acquittal | NCRMD leads to detention in mental health facility, not release |
| Functional incapacity matters | Mere diagnosis is insufficient; act must be caused by disorder |
| Periodic Review | Courts or authorities must review recovery before release |
6. Conclusion
NCRMD is a defense rooted in justice and humanitarian principles, balancing criminal liability with mental incapacity.
Section 84 IPC reflects the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
Judicial interpretations emphasize:
Psychiatric evaluation
Causal link between disorder and act
Protection of society through detention and treatment
Cases such as State of Maharashtra v. S.B., Raghunath Rao, Gopal, Selvi, and Pawan Kumar show consistent application of NCRMD principles across psychosis, schizophrenia, and intellectual disability.
RELATED Blog
comments