Unsoundness of mind is a good defence for committing criminal act

Unsoundness of mind is a good defence for committing criminal act

Author- Reshma Khatun, BALLB student Of department of law Calcutta University, West Bengal

INTRODUCTION

Unsoundness of mind is an absolute defense to any criminal charge as persons suffering from unsoundness of mind are deemed incapable of possessing the necessary mens rea to commit a crime. Section 84 ^ 1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 exonerates from criminal liability, a person of mental incapacity who does a criminal act. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his act sunless the contrary is proved. The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by section 84, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The defence has to prove that unsoundness of mind was present to such an extent at the time of commission of the offence that the doer of the act could not know the nature of the act he was committing. The accused has to merely probabilise his defense by preponderance of probabilities.

• Section 84 of IPC provides the provision for the defence of insanity in Indian criminal law. IPC does not used the term “insanity” . IPC uses the sentence  “mental soundness” . The defence of insanity and they can also be called the defence of mental insanity comes from Naghien’s rules.

• In section 84 of IPC ,a person of soundness mind shall act “ nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is by reason of unsound mind , incapable of knowing the nature of the act that which is wrong or contrary to law”.it should be find that the framers of the IPC must preferred the term “ mental insanity” instead of insanity . The scope of insanity is very limited but the mind’s insanity covers a large area.

 For the defence following elements has to be established.

         1.  The accused in the state of unsound mind at the time of the act.

        2. He must be unable to know the nature of his act or do what is either wrong or contrary to law.

                The ward “wrong” is differ from the term “contrary to the law” . If something is the wrong it is not necessary that it is contrary to law . The conception of legal insanity is differ from the conception of mental insanity. Not every from of insanity or madness can be recognised as an excuse.

• The accused must be of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offence.The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind must exist is at the time of commission of the offence. This is a question of fact and has to be decided by the court from case to case basis.

In Sherrill wali mohd v State of Maharashtra the Apex Court held that to establish that acts done are not offences under Section 84 of the IPC it must be proved clearly, that at the time of commission of the act the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act because of unsoundness of mind.

• To get the benefit of Section 84 the cognitive faculties of the mind must be so impaired that the accused becomes incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.

In Queen Empress v K N Shah the accused was suffering from mental derangement for some time. A person put his son in the company of the accused and on returning he found the accused hiding in the jungle and his son was killed by the accused. The court held that the circumstances attending the murder showed that he was not deprived of the reasoning power to distinguish between right and wrong (e.g. he hid himself in the jungle).

Similarly in the case of LaxmivStat * e ^ 8 the accused a drug addict was convicted for the murder of his step- brother He assaulted his step brother with a pharsa and then fled the spot and The court then fled the spot. The court held him guilty and not entitled to the benefit under section 84 as he knew the nature of his act as evident from his fleeing the spot to evade arrest.

SECTION 84 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 84 of the IPC recognizes only an act which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words “nothing is an offence”. The said words are a clear indication of the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission.

The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is a very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law.

The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the consequence of it.

Not of sound mind

                There are four types of persons of unsoundness of mind _

1. An idiot

2. A lunatic of insanity

3. A person becomes unsound mind due to illness ( mental decay)

4.Hypnotism

5.a person heavity drank or consumed any  intoxicated material.

Important case law’s 

[SRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA]

                 In this case the court held that the accused must be insane’ before and after the commission of an offence ‘ . In the court it must be proved that he is unable to know the nature of his act at the time of the act. The insanity is no describe in IPC.

[HARI SING GOND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2008 )SCC 109

                    In this case the court set out a legal test of insanity. There was no definition of “mind soundness” . The term is related to the expression “ insanity” . There was defferent degrees of mental disorder. So every mentally ill person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability. A distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court concerned with legal insanity not medical.

CONCLUSION

Insanity does not render a person inhuman. Human rights continue to vest in all human beings irrespective of their mental condition. Persons of unsound mind who commit a criminal act are not criminals. They do not deserve punishment, however, they require medical help. They can be a source of threat to the society and to their own selves, thus it is important to keep them under supervision. Punishment cannot reform them so they are to be placed either in safe custody or delivered to some relative or friend or be kept in an asylum.

Whenever a person is acquitted on the grounds of insanity, the court shall specifically state its findings whether the act had been committed by the accused or not.24 Upon acquittal such persons are to be kept in safe custody in such place and manner as the court deems fit. Some friend or relative may be allowed to keep the person upon their making an application and furnishing security to the Court that such person shall be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or any other person.25 But, where it is not possible for a mentally ill person to live with his family or relatives, or where a mentally ill person has been abandoned by his family or relatives, the appropriate Government shall provide support as appropriate including legal aid and to facilitate exercising his right to family home and living in the family home.26 Under Section 27, a person with mental illness shall be entitled to receive free legal services to exercise any of his rights given under the law and it shall be the duty of magistrate, police officer, person in charge of such custodial institution as may be prescribed or medical.