- ABSTRACT
The basis of the law of insanity lies in the maxim “Actus non facit riem, nisi men sit rea” which means no man can be proven guilty unless he has a guilty mind.[1] Often this defence is used to acquit persons on the grounds of being mentally unfit, the simple explanation being that at the time of these persons committing an act that was potentially a crime as defined by law, they happened to be unaware of the nature of the act they were committing. However, most of the time, the chances of this defence working out in favour of the person who has been charged with the crime are rather slim, because historically there hasn’t been much awareness regarding mental illness and as the notion goes, an illness that cannot be physically simply does not exist. The legal conception of insanity tends to differ from the medical conception of insanity since not every kind of insanity is excusable in the eyes of the law.[2] The McNaghten Rule was the first ever rule that was established in 1843, in England to test for criminal insanity. This rule has been subsequently used to form the basis for the English law of insanity as well as the Indian law of insanity that has been codified in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
- KEYWORDS
Defence, Criminal Liability, McNaghten Rule, Legal Insanity, Medical Insanity.
- INTRODUCTION
Crime refers to any act that a person commits which is prohibited by law, the commission of which often leads to punishment. Generally, this act which the law describes as a crime is intentionally committed by the individual and is of such nature that the society deems it to be harmful or dangerous i.e. it harms public welfare. Those accused of acts that are considered to be crimes under criminal law can be held responsible for the act they committed provided that the law can establish that the accused was aware of the nature of the act they were partaking in and the consequences of the said act. Essentially any person who has been accused of a crime has the legal right to defend themselves in a court of law. There exist multiple defences that an accused individual has access to, to prove their innocence. In some situations, the court might acquit or excuse the accused person for not having a guilty mind. The existence of Mens rea is a requisite under the law for a crime to take place, this is also highlighted by the Latin principle “Actus non facit riem, nisi men sit rea” which as previously mentioned requires the existence of a guilty mind for a crime to take place, but someone who takes the defence of insanity cannot be said to possess mens rea since the individual is not in the right state of mind or is considered to be mentally unfit by law.
The law recognizes individuals with unsound minds who do not understand the nature of their actions, as needing protection under the law. The basis of this defence is that the accused individual is unable to differentiate right from wrong and hence cannot be legally held accountable for the crime.[3] A very clear distinction exists between medical insanity and legal insanity. Medical insanity doesn’t make the person mentally unfit to be able to make decisions, rather it just recognises the fact that the individual is taking medicines or is consulting a therapist. Legal insanity is something that is proved by law and this pertains to a situation wherein a person has to be supervised because he/she lacks basic decision-making abilities. In order to be acquitted under the defence of insanity, the legal insanity of an individual needs to be proved by 3 psychiatrists after the judge of the court determines and declares the person insane and unfit to function in society as a rational person.[4]
3.1 M’NAGHTEN TEST & ITS CRITICISM
The traditional test of insanity under criminal law is the McNagthen Rule, the basis of which is whether or not the accused person can differentiate between right and wrong. This test dates back to 1843 and was established in England in the case that took place against Daniel McNaghten. He had shot and killed the prime minister’s secretary believing him to be the Prime minister, during his arrest, M’Naghten claimed he needed to murder the Prime Minister because “the Tories” were conspiring against him and wished to murder him. At trial, M’Naghten’s counsel put forth a defence of insanity, offering expert testimony and other evidence in support of this. Following instructions from the judge, the jury’s verdict was not guilty “by reason of insanity” and M’Naghten spent the rest of his life in a mental institution.[5]
Under this test, the accused is considered to be sane until and unless it can be proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused’s state of mind caused them to; not know what they were doing at the time of committing the act or that the accused was aware of what they were doing however they did not know what they were doing was wrong. As mentioned previously both English and Indian law have used the McNaghten rule to determine the defence of insanity in each country as have several other countries.
There have been multiple criticisms of the McNaghten rule because the general opinion is that the rule tends to rely more on intellectual capability without considering factors that may impact the emotional capability of the individual affecting his or her ability to think or act along rational lines, also the scope of the defence of insanity only remains confined to the mental condition of the individual at the time the act was committed. Such drawback causes the need for stricter tests to determine insanity to arise, and therefore in today’s time besides the McNaghten test there exist other tests such as the Durham test, the Model Penal Code, and the “Irresistible Impulse” test which are used to determine insanity of an individual. This defence of insanity often exempts a person from criminal liability. Provisions exist in both English and Indian law that are used to prove the innocence of a person facing criminal prosecution.
3.2 ENGLISH LAW & THE APPLICABILITY OF THE M’NAGHTEN RULE
Under English law, this defence is primarily based on the McNaghten rule, and as the rule states will hold a person innocent if it can be proved that at the time of the individual committing the act, he was unable to understand what he was doing and what he was doing was wrong. Mental disorders under English law are considered to be a disability of the mind but this law also distinguishes medical and legal insanity. As mentioned previously, for an individual to plead not guilty under the defence of insanity he or she must prove themselves suffering from a mental disorder that hampered their decision-making ability. The House of Lords had in the case of R v. Sullivan (1984) debated the defence of insanity and interpreted the mental condition of the accused under an epileptic fit as a disease of the mind when considering his plea of insanity.[6]
3.3 DEFENCE OF INSANITY UNDER INDIAN LAW
In the context of Indian law, however, instead of the term ‘insanity’ Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code uses the term ‘unsoundness of mind’ to incorporate a more comprehensive scenario of the defence of insanity. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because 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”.[7]
Multiple essential conditions exist under Sec. 84 of the IPC such as; (1) Act must be done by a person of unsound mind, (2) Such person was unsound at the time of committing the act (3) Such incapacity should be of unsoundness of mind of the accused (4) Such person was not capable to know the nature of the act or the act he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. [8] For an individual to benefit from the defence of insanity under Sec. 84 of the IPC the unsoundness of mind must be proved through any of the following tests: (1) The accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act (2) The accused was not capable of understanding that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. When evaluating an act, it’s important to differentiate between labelling it as ‘wrong’ and the possibility that while an act may be considered wrong, it may not necessarily be against the law. Under Indian law, an individual can derive the benefit of the defence of insanity if and only if it can be proved that insanity affected the cognitive ability of the individual that is used to perform actions which may be wrongful or contrary to law. Apart from this though one doesn’t need to fulfil both conditions mentioned under Sec. 84 of the IPC and any person who knows the nature of his act but was not capable of knowing if the act was wrong or contrary to law can still avail the benefit of the defence of insanity. In such cases, the burden of proof always lies upon the prosecution, which has the prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.
- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENGLISH & INDIAN LAW
Even though both countries have relied upon the McNaghten rule to determine the basis of the defence of insanity in their respective country, the Indian law on the defence of insanity mentioned under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code discards the use of the term ‘insanity’. Instead, it replaces it with ‘unsoundness of mind’ which includes a boarder view on the topic of mental ailments and individuals whose mental capabilities are compromised. Each country follows the basic principle of the McNaghten rule which is based on considering the person’s mental condition only at the time he committed the act. The Indian law however mentions ‘at the time of doing the act’ in contrast to the English law that reads ‘at the time of committing the act’ though there exists no difference in the meaning of the two. While the McNagthen rule only requires the accused individual to be unaware of the fact that the act he was doing was wrong, Section 84 of the IPC also comes to include contrary to law, therefore the Indian law includes an act that is either wrongful or contrary to law for an individual to plead the defence of insanity.
- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To provide a comprehensive analysis of the defence of Insanity and how this defence is treated under the provisions of English and Indian law, the author through the medium of electronic search made use of several research articles published on Research Gate, National Library for Medicine, and JSTOR. For information on the various tests that exist to prove Insanity, Black’s Dictionary of Law was referred to. When searching for the relevant legal statutes and provisions, the author particularly used primary sources, including the Indian Penal Code and the online source of Indian Kannon. The various case laws that the author used to gain an understanding of how insanity as a defence has been historically used sources such as Indian Kannon, SCC Online and Pumphrey law. Several articles were read by the author to develop the arguments presented in the paper and only those research papers or articles were utilised by the author which seemed useful and of the author’s research. A majority of research was conducted to reach the paper’s relevant conclusions from secondary sources with the author analysing several articles and research papers to sort through the information which pertained to the Insanity and the Defence of Insanity.
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The research conducted by the author to examine the doctrine of “Defence of Insanity” and subsequently present an analysis of the doctrine through the means of this research paper was done mainly through secondary sources involving the use of research papers, scholarly articles and legal databases. Most of the research papers or scholarly articles that were referred to discussed and examined the doctrine of the defence of Insanity, and how this particular doctrine has helped those individuals who suffer from mental ailments which compromise their judgement or ability to think like a rational person. The research papers authored by Ali Ajmal & Faiza Rasool and a subsequent research paper by the same authors along with a third author by the name of Farooq Naiza individually provide an in-depth analysis of the defence of insanity under English and Indian laws concerning the defence.
Several Legal sources were used by the author to gain an understanding of how the defence of insanity came to be included in the legal framework and the history of the McNaghten Rule, along with the applicability of the rule in countries today.
- SUGGESTIONS
The defence of insanity serves as a crucial legal recourse in cases where the accused is affected by a mental illness that significantly compromises their capacity to make sound and rational decisions. Those individuals who plead to be innocent under the defence of insanity tend to require rehabilitation and medical supervision to be able to make rational decisions, rather than being put in prison or detention facilities. While this measure under the law is valid, there have often been times when this defence has been abused such as in infamous cases of notorious murderers and killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Andrea Yates and the case of Lorena Bobbitt wherein her insanity plea was successful. In India, landmark cases where this defence has been used include Sudhkaran v. State of Kerala, Manoj v. State of Haryana, and Surender Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh amongst others. As mentioned, the main purpose of the insanity defence is to protect those persons whose mental capabilities are compromised and who are not in a position to understand why they are being punished, this defence, if abused, has repercussions since if a murderer or criminal manages to get be pardoned under the insanity defence and is put into a medical facility which is meant for those suffering from mental ailments then it would benefit anyone. Also, as previously mentioned the McNaghten Rule to test for insanity faces its criticisms because this rule has time and again proven to be too narrow to determine the insanity of a person, though in today’s time, several countries have adopted tests apart from the McNaghten to test for insanity. Several countries have altogether abolished this defence is important to note that Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) refers to the term ‘unsoundness of mind.’ However, it is crucial to define this term more precisely to prevent any confusion with the term ‘disease of the mind’, such a clarification becomes necessary to ensure proper interpretation and application of the law and ensure that the provisions of the law are not being abused for the wrong reasons.
- CONCLUSION
The above research paper can be summarised by mentioning that the insanity defence in those cases where the individual suffers from mental ailments such as duress, history of abuse and such fulfils its purpose, which is to help these individuals by considering their mental state of mind and punishing them for the act they committed with a lesser or reduced sentence. However, it is also to be noted that this defence of insanity is not without its faults. There is no guarantee that a person who has been accused of a heinous crime such as murder, assault, theft and such takes the defence of insanity because he or she can manipulate the system and prove that they were not in the right state of mind while committing the act. This is also laid down in the traditional test for insanity, The McNaghten Rule which considers the mental state of the individual at the time of committing the act and not any other subsequent factors that may affect the mind of the person. The applicability of this rule is rather narrow because it only takes into account the mental state of the person at the time he commits the crime and other factors which may have impacted the person’s mental capabilities are ignored. Though both English and Indian law have relied on the McNagthen Rule, to develop their tests for insanity, the Indian law that deals with the Insanity defence is more comprehensive for several reasons. As previously mentioned, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code discards the use of the term ‘insanity’ and instead makes use of the term ‘unsoundness of mind’ since this term includes mental derangements that are caused by a number of reasons, which might not always be the case when dealing with insanity since the scope of the term is rather limited. This is one of the key differences that arise between English and Indian law wherein English law makes use of the term ‘insanity’ however Indian law replaces this term with ‘unsoundness of mind’. Both countries have the primary requirement that the accused, at the time of committing the offence or the criminal act must be insane in order to benefit from the defence of insanity. In conclusion, while the insanity defence does protect individuals with mental illnesses and results in less severe punishment through reduced sentences, accused individuals often hesitate to use this defence since the general notion is that an illness that cannot be physically seen does not exist. Additionally, those who do use the insanity defence fear the stigma associated with mental illness and being labelled as “crazy” for being referred to a mental institution to receive the necessary help.
- REFERENCES
- Hopper, S and McSherry, B., The Insanity Defence and International Human Rights obligations, 8(2), Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 161, 161-173 (2009)
doi: 10.1080/13218710109525016.
- Ajay B. Sonavane, Adv. Radhika S. Bample- Raja Bhonsle], DEFENCE OF INSANITY IN INDIA AND ENGLAND: COMPARATIVE LEGAL PARADIGM, Vol. 3, ISSN:2348-8212, 146, 146 (2016)
- Ajmal, Ali & Rasool, Faiza., Analysis of Doctrine of Insanity Defense in English Criminal Law, Research Journal for Societal Issues, Vo. 6,109-116 (2024)
- Ajmal, Ali & Niazi, Farooq & Rasool, Faiza, Insanity Defense in Criminal Law in India: A Critical Analysis. (2024)
- Sharma, K. M, DEFENCE OF INSANITY IN INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 325–83 (1965)
JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43949854.
- Defence of Insanity, Legal Service India: E-Journals https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3140-defense-of-insanity.html
- Difference between Medical and Legal Insanity, Legal Service India: E-Journals
- M’naghten Rule, Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute ( accessed Jun. 10, 2024) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule
- Suresh Bada Math, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, Sydney Moirangthem, Insanity Defense: Past, Present and Future, Indian J Psychol Med, 381-387 (2015)
- Chappell, D, Victimisation and the Insanity Defence: Coping with Confusion, Conflict and Conciliation, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17(1), pp. 39–51. (2010)
doi: 10.1080/13218710903443070.
- Mackay, Ronnie, The Insanity Defence: International and Comparative Perspectives, Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice, Oxford Academic, (2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198854944.003.0002
- Societal And Legal Pros & Cons Of The Insanity Defense, RedLawList. Com https://www.redlawlist.com/blog/criminal-law/insanity-defense-pros-cons/
- Yeo, Stanley, THE INSANITY DEFENCE IN THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 241–63 (2008)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24870263.
- Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
- Black’s Dictionary of Law
Name: Dishita Mittal
College Name: Jindal Global Law School (O.P Jindal Global University)
[1] [Ajay B. Sonavane, Adv. Radhika S. Bample- Raja Bhonsle], DEFENCE OF INSANITY IN INDIA AND ENGLAND: COMPARATIVE LEGAL PARADIGM, Vol. 3, ISSN:2348-8212, 146, 146 (2016)
[2] LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3140-defense-of-insanity.html ( last visited Jun. 11, 2024)
[3] [Suresh Bada Math, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, Sydney Moirangthem], Insanity Defense: Past, Present and Future, Indian J Psychol Med, 381-387 (2015)
[4] LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5693-difference-between-medical-and-legal-insanity.html ( last visited Jun. 12, 2024)
[5] LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule ( last visited Jun. 11, 2024)
[6] Ajmal Ali & Rasool Faiza, Analysis of the Doctrine of Insanity Defense in English Criminal Law, Vol. 6,Research Journal for Societal Issues, 109-116, 110-112 (2024)
[7] Indian Penal Code, Section 84
[8] LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3140-defense-of-insanity.html ( last accessed Jun. 11, 2024)