Criminal Law, 2nd GCT Assignment

Faculty of Law Aligarh Muslim University Home Assignment :4th (GCT 2) Subject :Criminal Law -I Topic : Defense of Insanity Submitted by- Faraz Khan Enroll No. : GK1016 Roll No.: 19BALLB073 Semester :3rd Submitted to- Mrs. Rabab khan

SYNOPSIS 1: INTRODUCTION 2: SECTION 84 3: UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND 4:KINDS OF INSANITY 5:UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND AT THE TIME OF COMMITTING THE OFFENCE 6:PRESUMPTION OF SANITY 7:BURDEN OF PROOF 8:CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION Certain persons are exempt from the operation of the criminal law. Article 361 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the President of India, Governor of a State, or Rajpramukh are not answerable to any court for the matters pertaining to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office. It provides further that no criminal (or civil) proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor of a State in any court during their term of office. They are also immune from arrest or imprisonment during the term of their office. Chapter IV of the IPC captioned 'General Exceptions', comprising ss 76 to 106, exempts certain persons from criminal liability. An act or omission of an accused even though prima facie falls within the terms of a section defining an offence or prescribing a punishment therefor, does not constitute an offence if it is covered by any of the 'exceptions' enumerated in the ch IV. In other words, a wrongdoer, who has committed an act us reus with the requisite mens rea, may escape from liability because he has a 'general exception' to offer as an answer to the prosecution. The 'general exceptions, in ultimate analysis, limit and override offences and penal provisions of the Code. The title 'General Exceptions' is used to convey that these 'exceptions' are available to all offences. Section 84. Act of a person of unsound mind.-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. Unsoundness of mind is a complete defence to a criminal charge. It is based on the assumptions that one who is insane has no mind and hence, cannot have necessary mens rea to commit a crime. 1 Being deprived of free will, a mad man is placed in an even worse condition than a chil, because the latter can at least control his will and regulate his conduct, whereas the former cannot. 1

K D GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW Cases and materials p. 290(Lexis Nexis, 9th edition, 2019).

Moreover, the act of an insane man, being unintentional and involuntary, no court can correct him by way of punishment. 2 Insanity or mental abnormality is one of the general exceptions to criminal liability recognised by the IPC. By virtue of the maxim actus non facit reum nisi means sit rea, an act forbidden by penal law is not punishable if it is unaccompanied by a guilty mind. The justification for providing unsoundness of mind as a complete defence is that an insane person is incapable of forming criminal intent. Further, a mad man has no will (furiosus nulla voluntas est) and he is like one who is absent (furiosus absentis low est). In fact, a mad man is punished by his own madness (furiosus furore sui puniter).The foundation for the law of insanity was laid down by the House of Lords in 1843, in what is popularly known as the M'Naghten case.3 Unsoundness of Mind The term 'unsoundness of mind' has not been defined in the IPC. It means a state of mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is incapable of knowing that he is doing wrong or contrary to law. But, it has been equated by the courts to mean insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso fact exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused was conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite alright, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusualact s, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behavior or that behavior is queer are not sufficient to attract the provisions of s 84. A mere warped or twisted mind, which many a criminal has, cannot qualify to be termed 'unsound mind'. It is not every type of insanity which is recognised medically that is given the protection of this section. Medical insanity is different from legal insanity. The insanity, for the purpose of s 84, should be of such a nature that it completely impairs the cognitive faculty of the mind, to such an extent that he is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. It is only the legal and not the medical insanity that absolves an accused from criminal responsibility.4 Kinds of Insanity 2

Jerome Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law, 2nd Edn, 1960,p 499 R v M'Naghten (1843)8 ER 718: (1843) 10 C1&F 200. 4 PSA Pillai, Criminal Law, p. 78(Lexis Nexis,12th edition /2014). 3

There are no hard and fast rules in respect of what are the kinds of insanity which are recognised by courts as 'legal insanity'. A survey of the case law reveals that the courts are influenced more by the facts of the case and the nature of the crime, rather than any formal evidence as to the kind of insanity that the accused is suffering from.Law groups insanity into two broad heads, namely: (a) Dementia naturalis, i.e. individuals who are insane from birth, and (b) Dementia adventitia or accidentialis, i.e., an individual who becomes insane after his birth. Unsoundness of Mind at the Time of Committing the Offence One of the main points to be highlighted under this section is that the law is concerned only with insanity that existed at the time of committing the offence. The existence of unsoundness of mind prior to the commission of the offence or after the commission of the offence is neither relevant nor per se sufficient to bring his case within the exception provided by s 84, though it may be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether the accused was insane.What is crucial for him is to establish that he was insane at the time of committing the offence. The Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh v Ahmadulla , has held that the burden of proof is upon the accused to prove that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time when he did the act . In this case, the accused had murdered his mother-in-law to whom he bore ill-will in connection with his di-vorce. It was proved that he did the act at night having got into the house by scaling over a wall with the aid of a torch light and entered the room where the deceased was sleeping. All this showed that the crime was committed not in a sudden mood of insanity, but one that was preceded by careful planning and exhibiting cool calculation in execution and directed against a person who he considered to be his enemy. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court, rejecting his plea of insanity and setting aside the acquittals of both the sessions court and the high court, convicted the accused of the offence of murder, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.5 In Bhikari v State of Uttar Pradesh6 ,the accused was working in the field. A few months before the occur-rence, he had threatened to kill all the family members of the deceased. Further, on the date of the event,though there were other people around, he carefully chose only the children of

5

Id. at 79 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563, (1964) Cr LJ 472(SC) ; Bhikari v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1, (1966) Cr LJ 63(SC) . 6

the deceased's family. All this indicated that his act ions were deliberate, premeditated and not acts of an insane man. In Ratan Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh 7 the accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own clothes and house. It was held that this could hardly be called rational and was more likely verging on insanity. The Supreme Court accepted the plea of insanity raised by the accused and absolved him of criminal liability. PRESUMPTION OF SANITY It is important to remember that the plea of insanity is a defence against criminal responsibility. It must, therefore, be established by the defence. The courts will presume that every person is sane and in full control of all his faculties, until the contrary is proved.54As per s 1058 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, 'when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the IPC or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances'. The first illustration to s is as follows: 'A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A'. BURDEN OF PROOF When the plea of insanity is raised by the accused,it is not the duty of the prosecution to establish affirma-tively that the accused was capable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Every person is presumed to know the law and the natural conse-quences of his act. The prosecution, in discharging its burden in the face of a plea of insanity, has merely to prove the basic fact and to rely upon the normal presumptions aforesaid. It is then the accused who is called upon to rebut these presumptions and the inference in such manner as would go to establish his plea.9 The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of s 84, therefore, lies upon the accused. However, as in cases of proof of all General Exceptions, the accused need not prove the existence of insanity beyond reasonable doubt. All that he has to establish is the probability of the existence of insanity at the time of commission of the offence. 7

Ratan Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 778, (1971) Cr LJ 654(SC) . Indian Evidence Act 1872 9 Supra note 4 at 81 8

It is enough for him to show, as in the civil case, that the preponderance of probabilities is in his favor.However, it becomes obligatory on the part of an investigation officer to get the accused medically examined immediately when previous history of insanity or abnormality of mind of the accused is revealed to him or it comes or is brought to his notice and to place that evidence before the court. His failure to carry out the medical examination creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the accused entitles the benefit of doubt and the consequential acquittal.However, it may be pertinent to point out that the courts in India have, by and large, been very cautious to accept the plea of insanity. Conclusion Special procedure is prescribed for the conduct of trial of accused who is of unsound mind or insane. Chapter 25 of the CrPC prescribes elaborate procedure for trial of a person of unsound mind. During a trial, if it appears to the judge that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, then at the first instance, the trial court is required to conduct an enquiry and try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity. This is to ascertain whether the accused is capable of making his defence or not. Failure on the part of the court to do so vitiates the whole trial.If the court comes to a conclusion that the accused is of unsound mind, then the trial will be postponed, until such time the accused is treated and is in a position to understand the court proceedings and to defend himself.If the accused is acquitted on the ground that he, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, the magistrate or court is required to order that he be either detained in safe custody in a lunatic asylum or be delivered to a relative or a friend, who gives security to the court that he will take care of him and prevent him from causing injury to himself or to any other person.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1: D GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW Cases and materials(Lexis Nexis, 9th edition, 2019). 2: Jerome Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law, 2nd Edn, 1960, 3: PSA Pillai, Criminal Law, p. 78(Lexis Nexis,12th edition /2014). 4:Ratan Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 778, (1971) Cr LJ 654(SC) . 5:R v M'Naghten (1843)8 ER 718: (1843) 10 C1&F 200.