DEFENCE OF INSANITY UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

Section 84 of Indian Penal Code provides that, “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”.

LEGAL INSANITY:?

To take the defence of insanity in the criminal law, the legal insanity is to be proved rather than medical. Legal insanity is different from medical insanity as not every kind of insanity can be taken as a defence under law. The Calcutta High Court in GERON ALI v. King, 1941 recognised two tests from which if one is proved, the benefit of section 84 can be invoked:

1. INCAPABLE TO KNOW THE NATURE OF THE ACT: This defence is proved when the insanity has affected the cognitive faculty. This is a defence because if the insanity affects cognitive faculty, the person is not able to have any control of his actions.
2. INCAPABLE TO KNOW RIGHT OR WRONG: This defence is taken where any mental disease has caused Partial Insanity. The cases of delusions are covered under this as a person knows the nature of the act but cannot distinguish the right or wrong.

● ONUS OF PROOF:?

The onus of proving the offence is always on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. But the burden to prove the insanity lies on the accused under Section 105 of Evidence Act, 1872. The circumstances like Motive, Preparation, False Statements, Conducts before & after, desire for concealment can be taken into consideration to decide the mental condition of the accused.

?The scope of this section has been widened through Judicial Pronouncements:

● Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh: ?It was observed that Section 84 sets out the legal test of liability in the cases alleging mental insanity. There is no definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC ,but the courts have mainly treated it amounting to insanity.?

● Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand:

Court said that ,‘every person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability.’

●Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra:

?The SC held that “It is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the recorded evidence” that would prove that the offence was committed or not .

?