ABSTRACT

The primary focus shall be on loopholes that exist to avail insanity as a general defence and how can one exculpate from the criminal liability of his acts, moving forward it will introduce the topic and discuss the legal provision related to it that prevail in India after that it will throw light on the background of the topic advancing to that it will analyse the criticism over the topic after that it will critically examine the positive and negative aspects of Insanity defence laws, adding on to information we have discussed various cases to discuss the legitimacy of various provisions and rules.

INTRODUCTION

The defence of an individual who is mentally sick or insane is covered in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It could be argued that the accused could avoid the penalty if he confessed to the crime while testifying in court that he was insane at the time. Criminals can operate under the law. If the legislation passed in earlier years is still in effect or if there is now a gap in the criminal justice system has been the subject of research.

Section 84 of the IPC Act of a mentally ill person:

No offence is committed by a person who, while committing, due to mental uncleanness, is unable to know the nature of the act or that. you are doing wrong or against the law.

One of the basic assumptions of our criminal justice system is that the legal responsibility includes both the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea, that is, to be charged with a criminal offense a person must freely choose to commit a criminal act, knowing that this act is criminal.

As the presence of mental disorders is seen by some as impaired for a criminal purpose, a crazy self-defence was introduced, which has the potential to give mentally disturbed sons a possible release from the criminal obligation. However, because of crazy self-defence: Is intended to distinguish between those who are morally responsible and those who are innocent, those who are suspicious and absent, those who are free to choose and those who are not, and those who should be punished with the wrong ones.

Insanity defence or Plea is defined as defending insanity refers to the defence of a defendant’s ability to defend himself in a criminal case. In defending insanity, the accused admits to the act but ensures no guilt based on mental illness. 

Section 84 IPC, is based upon the fundamental principles of,

• Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea which means that nothing is wrong unless done with a guilty intention and
• Furiosi nulla voluntas est which means that 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 an absence of mens rea or an intent.

Depending on the jurisdiction, courts use one or a combination of the following tests for legal insanity:

• The Mc Naghten Rule – Defendant either did not understand what he or she did or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a ‘disease of the mind’.
• The Irresistible Impulse test – As a result of a mental disease, the defendant was unable to control his impulses, which led to a criminal act.
• The Durham Rule – No matter of clinical diagnosis, the defendant’s mental defects resulted from a criminal act.
• The Model penal code test for legal insanity – Because of a diagnosed mental defect, the defendant either failed to understand the criminality of his acts or was unable to act within the confines of the law.

Many worldwide states that accept legal insanity use either the M’naghten Rule (sometimes in conjunction with the Irresistible Impulse Test), or the Model Penal Code. Just New Hampshire uses traditional Durham.

KEYWORDS

Insanity defence, Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Accused, Plea.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This paper is based on secondary resources, like government reports and journals, various books related to the topic, research papers and articles. Also, analysis of the cases and judgment of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and material from constitutional articles and Acts have been used for in-depth legal research.

BACKGROUND

The legal system has allowed for the insanity argument for many years. The insanity argument was first cited in a court proceeding in the United States in the case of Daniel M’Naghten in 1843. M’Naghten tried to kill the British Prime Minister, but he was exonerated due to insanity. In the United States and many other nations, this case served as the benchmark for the insanity argument.

A person who is psychologically ill or has a mental defect cannot be held accountable for their actions, according to the insanity defence. However, the argument does not grant you a free pass from punishment. The defendant must establish their insanity in order to claim that they could not differentiate between right and wrong at the time of the crime or that they did not comprehend the nature of their actions.

MEDICAL INSANITY V. LEGAL INSANITY

Legal criteria for mental illness have been established under Section 84 IPC, but there is no precise definition of terms like “unsoundness of mind” or “insanity” in the statute; as a result, these terms have different connotations depending on the context and describe different degrees of mental disorders. To easily distinguish between the two, a person with a mental illness is referred to as having “medical insanity,” whereas in a case of “legal insanity,” a person with a mental illness also has lost his or her ability to reason at the time of the commission of the crime. Legal insanity is solely a legal notion with no connection to psychiatry; it specifically refers to a person’s “mental state” at the time of committing the crime.

In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh^[1], the Supreme Court observed that Section 84 sets out the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged mental insanity. There is no definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC. However, the courts have mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself does not have a precise definition. It is a term used to describe various degrees of mental disorders. So, every mentally ill person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal responsibility. A distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, not medical insanity.

In the case of Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand^[2], it was pointed out that ‘every person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability.’

BURDEN OF PROOF

According to the law, unless the contrary is proven, every man is assumed to be sane and to have an adequate level of reason to be responsible for his actions. Because the Insanity defence is more of a departure from the general law in this manner, there are specific legal provisions that must be followed in order to establish and use the Insanity defence. The burden of proof for the insanity defence is always on the accused, who must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she was “legally” insane at the time the offense was committed. The accused must provide proof, such as oral and written documents, to demonstrate his or her incapacity to understand the nature of the act or the fact that the act was wrong in the eyes of law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra^[3], held that the time when the unsoundness has to be proven is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this, lies on the party which is claiming the benefit of Section 84. In T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka^[4] Apex Court has observed that the burden on the accused is only to satisfy the preponderance of probabilities which makes it similar to that of civil cases.

CRITICISM

Despite its lengthy past, the insanity defence has received a lot of flak. Some contend that it is a flaw that lets offenders escape punishment for their offenses. They contend that defendants can exaggerate or fake mental illness in order to escape going to jail. Some contend that the lunacy defence is applied too frequently and in situations where it is inappropriate. One of the most famous cases featuring the insanity defence is the case of John Hinckley Jr. In 1981, Hinckley made an effort to kill President Ronald Reagan, but he was exonerated due to insanity. After being admitted to a mental hospital, Hinckley was finally freed in 2016. Many people criticized the verdict in the Hinckley case, arguing that he should have been held responsible for his actions.

TYPES OF INSANITY

1. Temporary Insanity: – A condition in which an individual only occasionally experiences or is subject to periods of insanity. Depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and compulsive behaviours are some examples of transient mental diseases or insanities. There are two potential outcomes in the defence of momentary insanity: “not guilty because insane” and “guilty but can’t be tried because insane.”

2. Permanent Insanity: – A condition in which a person consistently suffers a mental illness. From past records and events that had occurred, it can be proved that the person is permanently insane and unable to understand the gravity of any situation.

POSITIVE ASPECTS OF INSANITY DEFENCE LAWS

1. It is a solution in cases where the accused is, in reality, a person with some mental issues and therefore comes to his/her aid, although in the present time legitimate cases with such issues are in a minority. 
2. This defence prevents capital punishment because an insane person who has confessed his/her crime is incapable to understand the gravity of what he has done and therefore giving capital punishment is unjustifiable.
3. In a country like India where an accused of some crime is considered lesser human, this defence provides relief to a mentally challenged person. If availed, the accused by this can be formally discharged and acquitted. 
4. For a mentally challenged person, this defence is more like a “life-giver” because his/her state is similar to that of a child who does not know about what he/she is doing and is unacquainted with the consequences. Therefore, imposing burdensome charges on such a person would be against morality.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF INSANITY DEFENCE LAWS

1. Considering the present-day misuse of this defence, the Law of Insanity has been abolished in many countries. Countries such as Germany, Argentina, Thailand and many counties in England have already abolished such defences. An analogical example would be wrong to draw out here but considering the misuse of this defence in multitudinous cases wherein, brute Criminals get an acquittal on the ground of insanity simply demeans the very notion the law was built upon.
2.  As has already been mentioned in the piece, it is up to the accused to establish insanity and use this defence, and doing so is extremely difficult. Although medical insanity could be easily established, proving it legally is difficult because the party must present specific proof. It is very challenging to demonstrate legal lunacy in accordance with the requirements of Section 84 IPC. For this reason, the accused is often charged and punished in reputable instances of insanity. 
3. The defence of insanity can be misused to escape from acquittal or punishment. It is very difficult to examine whether the person was of sound mind or unsound mind at the time when the crime was committed. This way the case depends upon the prudence of the judge and in one way or another the law loses its essential purpose.

INTERPRETATION OF JUDICIARY IN INSANITY TERMS

Since the beginning of time, insanity has been used as a defence in judicial proceedings, particularly in homicide cases. All males are assumed to be the same until they are shown to be insane, it has long been agreed. The Supreme Court has ruled that psychopaths and those with mental illnesses cannot ask for immunity from prosecution in criminal cases; instead, they must prove they were insane at the time the crime was done. The court ruled that section 84 offers immunity from criminal prosecution as given by an abnormal state of mind in the case of bench DK Jain, where the man severed his wife’s head as a result of that abnormality.

In Kamala Bunia v. West Bengal, the defendant faced an axis trial for the murder of her spouse. A lawsuit was filed against her because it was claimed that she was insane at the time of the incident; however, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had mens rea at the time of the offense even though the accused made no attempt to flee or remove the incriminating weapon. As a result, they qualify for section 84 and were legally insane at the time the crime was committed.

LEADING INDIAN CASES

• Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh^[5]

The trial court held that the accused was not liable to be punished. An appeal was filed by the state, and the High court reversed the findings of the trial and held the accused liable for the offence. Afterwards, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, and the conviction was set aside based upon two major factors:

1. Medical evidence provided and, 
2. According to the behaviour of the accused on the day of the occurrence.

These factors indicated that the accused was insane within the meaning of Section 84, IPC.

●       Seralli Wali Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra

The offender was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of his wife and daughter with a chopper. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of insanity because the mere fact that there was no motive proved, or that he did not attempt to run, was not sufficient to prove that he did not have the mens rea for committing the act. 

• Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration^[6]

It was observed that the accused, after being arrested, gave normal and intelligent statements to the investigating officers. Nothing abnormal was noticed in his behaviour. Considering all these findings, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act and was well aware of the consequences of his acts. He was held guilty of murder under Section 302, IPC.

INSANITY AS LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS

The insanity defence is provided by the Indian Legal Statute to defend the insane individual who is unable to distinguish between right and wrong due to their unsound mind. When using this defence, insane people may receive a very little penalty or even receive no punishment at all. But in order to accomplish that, the insane person must present fair proof that demonstrates their insanity and mental instability in the eyes of the law, such as declarations of their incapacity to understand the implications of their actions.

However, this defence is abused by criminals of sound mind who are fully aware of the repercussions of their actions and can distinguish between legal and illegal behaviour in order to avoid punishment for the crime they commit. Criminals abuse this defence when they perpetrate heinous crimes like rape, murder, kidnapping, etc., which carry harsh and severe penalties like the death penalty.

Because they believe they can easily avoid punishment after committing some heinous crime if they choose to use the insanity defence, offenders who are of sound mind and act within the scope of their knowledge conduct crimes and claim insane in front of the court. The most shocking portion is that, on occasion, these individuals even succeed in obtaining this defence by demonstrating their own insanity. They falsify the records, intimidate the physicians, and expose their mental instability. The corruption and poverty that are the nation’s two main social ills may be significant factors in this.  The wealthy guy who occupies their AC chambers abuses their authority and the legal system on a daily basis. Even the witnesses and the proof can be manipulated by the offenders and false evidence is produced before the court with the help of political hands and financial aid in this country.

Insanity has become a loophole for criminals. Proving insanity is not an easy task and it takes lots of time to satisfy the mind of judges that the person is suffering from unsoundness of mind, which causes delays in the justice delivery system. This delay leads to abuse of the judiciary at the hands of the accused. Criminals who willingly abuse the justice delivery system by manipulating the statute are well acquainted with the actions and consequences their actions follow, they have full knowledge and motive in doing what they have done such as injury, grievous hurt, or murder or rape and hence perform the act having the intention to do so. The defence of insanity gets them an easy acquittal and possibly no punishment is charged on them, because the condition of mind of a person can be changed on a piece of paper but predicting whether the person is sane or not is very difficult. After proving all the evidence in the court, it is at the discretion of the judge whether to pass judgement in the favour of the accused person or against him and whether he should be punished or not.

Due to their strong financial backing and political connections, the criminals in the majority of these instances are so powerful that they can intimidate judges and even pay them to rule in their favour. Some criminals pose such a grave threat that they take the lives of individuals who work for the legal system with justification. Additionally, it has been observed that these individuals and, in some instances, their families, lose their reputation and goodwill in society. The offenders employ this defence without hesitation or dread, believing that they are now free and untouchable. They believe the judicial system is asleep and that justice is located beneath their feet. Even after having so many amendments and strict laws due to some loopholes in the judicial mechanism, the criminals manage to escape from crimes by using this insanity defence which is the biggest loophole in the court of law.

CONCLUSION

As of right now, we can all agree that the Insanity defence is the most common defence used by criminals to get away with any offense. The mental state of any individual at the time the crime was done cannot be established with any degree of certainty. This defence loses its sting as a result of the Indian Judicial System’s redundancy, which only serves to fuel the fire and make word games the only thing that counts. These cases are more complex than any other case because the accused in these situations consents to commit the crime but escapes punishment, which should raise red flags for any right-minded person.

For these important reasons, it is fair to say that the Insanity defence Law has lost some of its original fervour and has now turned into a tool used by criminals to avoid facing punishment. The creation of simpler laws and tests is now one of the remedies accessible to fill in these gaps. A system to distinguish between violent criminals and insane criminals, the former of which are the real culprits, could be the first move toward reforms. Reforms in this area are only feasible if states enact stricter legislation to control these issues, and it is past due for significant changes to these provisions.

Submitted By- Shephali Agrawal, Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

---

[1] (2008) 16 SCC 109

[2] (2011) 11 SCC 495

[3] (1973)4 SCC 79

[4] (2002)1 SCC 219

WEBSITES:

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/insanity-defence-indian-penal-code/
2. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/insanity%2Bcases
3. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3098-judicial-approach-on-plea-of-insanity-in-india.html
4. https://dejurenexus.com/insanity-as-a-defence-a-loophole-for-criminals/
5. https://lexpeeps.in/insanity-defence-a-loophole-for-criminals/

[5] 1971 AIR 778 1971 SCR (3) 251 1970 SCC (3) 533

[6] 1969 SCR (1) 140