The Insanity Defense In Criminal Cases: Balancing Justice And Mental Health
Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate
Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Email Id : sabherwalassociates@gmail.com
Date : 23/02/2024
Location : Chamber No.81, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
📱 +91-9872215757
The Insanity Defense In Criminal Cases: Balancing Justice And Mental Health
Mens Rea is generally considered the essential element of crime. The concept of insanity as a defense in criminal cases has been a subject of much debate and scrutiny within the legal and mental health communities. The insanity defense allows individuals accused of committing crimes to argue that, due to a severe mental disorder or incapacity, they should not be held criminally responsible for their actions. This defense raises complex ethical, legal, and psychological questions, highlighting the delicate balance between protecting society, holding individuals accountable, and addressing mental health concerns. The concept of insanity as a defense has ancient roots, but it gained prominence in the 19th century with the famous M'Naghten case in England. Daniel M'Naghten, under the delusion that he was being persecuted, attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister. The subsequent trial established the M'Naghten Rule, a legal standard stating that a defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the crime, they were suffering from a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of understanding the nature and quality of their actions or knowing that what they were doing was wrong. The insanity defense varies across jurisdictions, and legal systems often adopt different standards to determine an individual's mental state at the time of the alleged crime. The two main standards used are the M'Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code's substantial capacity test. The M'Naghten Rule focuses on whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of their actions or understood that what they were doing was wrong. The Model Penal Code's test evaluates whether, due to a mental disorder, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code gives the statutory recognition to the defence of Insanity. Essential Elements of Section 84 Indian Penal Code1. The person should be of unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence.
2. That due to the unsoundness of the mind the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Burden of Prove: The burden of proving the defense of insanity rests on the accused. It is up to the accused to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that they were suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offense.. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the same. Legal Insanity versus Medical Insanity It has been time and again held in a plethora of judgments that the courts are concerned with Legal Insanity and mere medical insanity cannot be held to be unsoundness of mind. The test of legal insanity attracts the mandate of Section 84 IPC. A person is legally insane when he is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong a contrary to law. The incapacity of the person on account of insanity must be of the nature which attracts the operation of Section 84 I.P.C. The expression unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to 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 per se exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is odd, eccentric and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behavior or the behavior is queer are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The medical profession would undoubtedly treat the accused as a mentally sick person. However, for the purposes of claiming the benefit of the defence of insanity in law, the appellant would have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the crime was committed, as not to know the nature of the act. Every type of insanity recognised in medical science is not legal insanity, every minor mental aberration is not insanity. Only legal insanity is contemplated under Section 84 of I.P.C. The rule is that "to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that commission of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. The act, apart, there should be some clear and distinct proof of mental delusion or intellectual aberration existing previously or at the time of the perpetration of the crime. The derangement must be shown to one which impairs the cognitive faculties of the accused, that is, the faculty of understanding the nature of his act in its bearing on the victim or in relation to himself, that is, his own responsibility for it. The Court is only concerned with the state of mind of the accused at the time of the act and the antecedent and subsequent conduct of the man is relevant only to show what the state of the mind was at the time when the act was committed. Judicial Pronouncements:1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998 held that the crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind as defined in section 84 has to be established is when the act was committed.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1563 have held that that when a plea of legal insanity is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat" (1964) 7 SCR 361, referring to Section 84 of IPC and the rule of evidence as contained in Sections 4, 101 and 105 of the Evidence Act held:
"It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in Section 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the material placed before the court. such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of "prudent man", the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to' discharge the burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in s. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution, and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity...
The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the. accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged."
4. That recently in the matter Prakash Nayi @ Sen - Appellant v. State of Goa - Respondents 2023(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 823 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"4. 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.
xxx
6. 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."
Implications and Future Considerations: The use of the insanity defense raises questions about the intersection of mental health and criminal justice. As society's understanding of mental illness evolves, legal standards may need to adapt to ensure a fair balance between protecting the public and acknowledging the rights of those with mental disorders. Collaborations between legal and mental health professionals, ongoing research, and public discourse will play pivotal roles in shaping the future of insanity as a defense in criminal cases. Conclusion The insanity defense remains a complex and contentious aspect of criminal law, navigating the delicate balance between justice and compassion. While it provides a legal avenue for individuals struggling with severe mental illness, its application requires careful consideration to prevent potential misuse. As society continues to grapple with the interplay of mental health and criminal responsibility, the insanity defense will likely remain a subject of ongoing legal and ethical scrutiny.© Chawla Publications (P) Ltd.