INTRODUCTION:
As it is known that Mens rea is an important factor in crime, according to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, in situations when mens rea is lacking and the conduct was committed as a consequence of specific compelling circumstances, such cases fall under the General Exceptions established in Sections 76-106 of the IPC. As a result, the individual is legally responsible for his actions until the defence is successfully shown in court, in which case an exemption is granted. In criminal prosecution, the defence of insanity is used to demonstrate that the offender was suffering from a serious mental disease at the time the Act was committed. As a result, the individual may be unaware of what they are doing in their conscious mind. In rare cases, a person who is not mentally ill may seek to evade punishment by claiming insanity; nevertheless, insanity as a defence is only permitted in a few cases. Despite the fact that it was placed in place to improve justice, most individuals use the defence of insanity to evade legal punishment. Such a situation poses a severe concern since people will become more involved in such activities because there would be no deterrence.
MEANING OF INSANITY:
Insanity is defined as a person’s inability to grasp the meaning of their acts or know that they are wrong or illegal. It is a mental illness in which a person’s mental abilities are affected to the point where he is unable to recognise the consequences of his actions. It is difficult to define insanity in a way that satisfies legal standards. For the general public, insanity is often connected with mental sickness or some type of mental affliction. Insanity is defined as “any mental disease severe enough that it prohibits a person from having legal capacity and relieves the individual from criminal or civil liability,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary. Insanity is a legal word, whereas “mental sickness,” “mental disorder,” or “mental defect” refers to a medical condition that necessitates psychiatric or psychological treatment. As a result, one can have a mental illness, disease, or condition while remaining legally crazy; nevertheless, one cannot be mad while suffering from a mental illness.
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PRINCIPLES:
According to the Indian law, all offences are made up of two parts: mens rea and actus reus. In circumstances when the defendant invokes the defence of insanity, he or she claims a lack of mental competence or an inability to generate mens rea. Under the English law, prior to the James Hadfield’s trial, insanity and automatism (the performance of activities without conscious thought or intentions) were considered interchangeably.
Hadfield’s proposal to shoot King George 3 in order to rescue the world did not match the then-defined definition of insanity. Hadfield was acquitted of charges stemming from previous head injuries that caused hallucination. But the breakthrough came when, unlike previous acquittals, he was not released into society. The parliament subsequently approved the “Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800”, which required the jury to determine whether the accused was insane at the time the act was passed. These clauses pushed for the institutionalization of insane people rather than letting them wander freely.
Later, the trial of Daniel McNaughton established the focus of the law and the necessity of expert testimony, as well as developing worldwide insanity law.
McNaughton shot the Prime Minister’s confidential secretary in an effort to kill him in 1843. He was then acquitted on the basis of insanity but was sent to a mental institution. McNaughton Rules are rules enacted by the House of Lords in reaction to this scenario.
These rules are derived from 3 tests.
Defect of reason – This defect should be cognitive in nature and not mere stupidity.
Disease of mind – The disease should be relevant at the time of Commission of the Act.
The test of wrongfulness of the Act committed is in the power to distinguish between right and wrong with regard to the particular act committed.
In Durham vs. United States (1954), the defendant broke into a residence and attempted to invoke insanity as a defence. The McNaughton test and the irresistible impulse test were deemed outmoded in the appeal. However, the two tests were eventually deemed to be suitable for use in addition to the Durham Rule (The product test).
Two main components of Durham Rule:
The defendant must possess a mental disease. This judgement indicates to rely more on objective and psychological standards rather than Focusing on the defendant’s subjective cognition.
Only if the criminal act or behavior is caused by the mental disease then the conduct should be exempted under the circumstances. This conduct though more dynamic and practical is currently accepted only in New Hampshire as regarded to be too broad by other jurisdictions.
INSANITY AS A DEFENCE UNDER THE INDIAN LAW:
The term “insanity” is not defined anywhere in Indian legislations but insanity as a defence is provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) under “Act of person of unsound mind”, which states that nothing is an offence if it is done by a peson who, at the time of commission, was incapable of comprehending the nature and consequences of the act he/she has been doing and was also oblivious that the same is prohibited by law.
Analyzing the aforementioned section, it is clear that the provision is heavily influenced by the McNaughton’s Test, and because it is based on the 5-point propositions, it is divided into 2 broad categories, the first being Major criteria, which cover cases where the person was suffering from mental illness at the time of the crime, and the second being Minor criteria, which cover cases where the person was suffering from mental illness at the time of the crime:
That the person was incapable of knowing the nature of the act,
That the person was incapable of knowing that his/her act was wrong,
That the person did not know that what he/she was doing is contrary to law.
Under both these criteria, the insanity is legal insanity and therefore once proven the accused could be acquitted.
It is also to be noted here that Section 84 IPC, is based upon the fundamental principles of,
(a) Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - nothing is wrong unless done with a guilty intention
(b) Furiosi nulla voluntas est - a person with mental illness has no free will and therefore he/she can do no wrong. This way Section 84 discharges a person with mental illness from his liabilities because of absence of mens rea or an intent.
MEDICAL INSANITY VS. LEGAL INSANITY:
Section 84 of the IPC establishes a legal test for mental disease, however there is no exact definition of phrases like “unsoundness of mind” or “insanity” in the legislation, therefore they have varied meanings in different situations and indicate varying degrees of mental disorders.[1] Because there is a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity, and courts are solely concerned with legal insanity, a person suffering from mental illness is not simply excused from criminal liability. To distinguish the two:
“Medical insanity” means- an individual suffering from a mental disease and;
“legal insanity” means- a person suffering from a mental illness also loses his/her thinking capacity at the time of the crime’s conduct.[2]
Therefore, when we talk about Legal insanity, it only relates to a person’s “mental state” at the time of committing the crime regardless if the person was not insane the certain intervals of his life span. Thus, it is strictly a legal notion with no psychological underpinnings. For insanity to qualify as a legal insanity, one of the three requirements of Section 84, as indicated previously, must be met, and only then can the accused attempt a defence based on insanity.
In Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan[3], The Supreme Court ruled that a psychopath’s mere aberration of mind or partial hallucination, irrepressible drive or obsessive behavior provides no protection under Section 84 IPC.
In Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand[4], The Supreme Court ruled that Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code only applies to legal insanity, not medical insanity, and that a person suffering from mental disease is not immune from criminal prosecution.
As a result, under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to prove not only that the person is suffering from mental illness, but also that the circumstances based on evidences show that the person was unable to appreciate the nature of his behavior and committed a crime.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
Unless proven otherwise, every individual is deemed to be sane and to have a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his actions under the law.[5] As a result, insanity as a defence is more like a deviation from normal law, and there are unique procedures mandated by law to show and utilise insanity as a defence. The burden of proof for the insanity as a defence is always on the accused, who must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she was “legally” crazy at the time of the offence. The accused must establish, by evidence such as oral and written documentation, that he was unaware of the nature of the deed or that his/her behaviour was illegal.[6]
In Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra[7], The Supreme Court ruled that the moment when the unsoundness must be demonstrated is when the crime is committed, and the duty of showing this is on the person claiming the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC.
In T.N. Lakshmaiah vs. State of Karnataka[8], according to the Supreme Court, the burden on the accused is just to satisfy the preponderance of probability, which is identical to the burden in civil trials.
INSANITY AS A LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS:
Insanity as a defence has repeatedly been misapplied, with the guilty being released on the basis of mental illness in a variety of events and circumstances, undermining the notion of law. Due to rampant abuse, numerous countries, including Germany, Argentina, Thailand, and the majority of the United Kingdom, have banned this defense.[9] Because the accused has the burden of establishing and availing of insanity as a defence, proving and availing of this defence is a tough task. While demonstrating medical insanity is straightforward, legally establishing insanity is a difficult task that the accused must prove with real evidence. To escape criminal culpability, all of the required requirements under Section 84 of the IPC must be met, however this is impossible to do, and as a result, most insanity defence cases result in the accused being charged with criminal responsibility and penalised. As a result, the insanity defence is frequently misapplied since it is difficult to ascertain whether a person’s thinking were “sound or unsound” at the time the crime was committed.
Even though the defence of insanity is rarely used in criminal trials, it remains a contentious issue. The topic of whether a defence of insanity is essential occurs regularly in our minds. By showing insanity, an accused individual charged with horrible and horrific crimes is found not guilty of committing such crimes. When the defence of insanity is offered, the suspect acknowledges guilt and asks to be found not guilty because of his mental state. Criminals may plead insanity to avoid punishment. In actuality, invoking insanity as a defence is, at best, a dangerous strategy. A basic principle of criminal law looks to be under jeopardy. The defence of insanity is based on the premise that punitive measures should only be used if the offender is deserving of them. The individual who performed the illegal act must have moral responsibility as a moral agent, which is a basic need for punishment. When a person’s mental illness is severe enough that they can no longer regulate their irrationality or compulsions, they are unable to function as moral agents. Punishing someone in such a severe condition would be unfair.
According to Section 84 of the IPC, mental illness is the same as cognitive disabilities. Other sorts of mental illness cannot be used in court. Various mental disorders that define someone as mentally ill may damage his capacity to work to the point of losing control of his actions. Many crimes are committed as a result of an anger or emotional outburst. After completing the act, a person may become aware of what he has done. His actions, however, were driven by his emotions at the time. His cognitive ability may be perfectly normal. Although Section 84 aims to treat mentally ill individuals correctly, erroneous acquittals or convictions do occur in some cases. As a result, bigger concepts like emotions, pre-act situations, and so on must be considered. The concept of legal insanity is being broadened to encompass additional characteristics of medical insanity. Rather than focusing on the offender, the emphasis should be on eradicating crime. On the contrary, in the larger interests of society, these offenders should be kept in psychiatric hospitals, with adequate assessments of their mental health performed to avoid any erroneous acquittals or convictions. In all such cases, a psychiatrist should be contacted, and the individua’s fate should not be left to the judgement of a single judge. A judge may be obligated by law to make a certain ruling. A doctor’s recommendation should be necessary.
CONCLUSION:
The defence of insanity has always been woven into the fabric of criminal law. It is employed seldom, and even less frequently effectively, and its successful usage usually comes at a high cost to the pleader (in terms of both stigma and length of institutional stay). The defence remains a prisoner of both behavioral and empirical myth; while bearing little similarity to reality, these myths have come to represent the public’s opinion of the defence and the plea. It is difficult to imagine a more poorly understood subject of criminal law.
SUGGESTION:
The provisions under Section 84 of the IPC require additional dynamism. Jurors should now follow more progressive changes mandated by foreign courts. The judges’ discretion must also be considered.
In the sake of justice, psychiatric professionals’ recommendations and evidence should be weighted more heavily than they are now.
We also need a proactive system in place to ensure that medical help and evaluation are provided on time, since this will add to the Defense of Insanity’s integrity.
REFERENCES: [1] Hari Singh Gond vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. (2008) 16 SCC 109. [2] Hari Singh Gond vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. (2008) 16 SCC 109. [3] Appeal (crl.) 1313 of 2006 [4] (2011) 11 SCC 495. [5] State of M.P. vs. Ahmadull. AIR 1961 SC 998. [6] State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta. (2012) 1 SCC 602. [7] (2002) 7 SCC 748. [8] (2002) 1 SCC 219. [9] Anuja Tripathy, “The Law of Insanity Defence: Loophole for criminals” available at https://ijlra.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Anuja-Tripathy-1.pdf (Visited on May 28, 2021).
Written By,
Kalpana Nailwal,
Intern, Chanchlani Law World
Opmerkingen