Insanity Defence: A loophole for criminals
Insanity can be defined as a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity defence in simple words means that if a particular crime is committed by a person in a state of insanity, he/she cannot be held liable for that crime.
This concept is majorly popular in criminal law where the defendant alleges that he/she was not sober at the time of commitment of the crime, and so takes the defence of insanity to escape punishment. It is used as a tool to save an alleged person from the accountability of a crime. Insanity can be of two types mainly-
1.Temporary insanity- This refers to a situation where the person experiences a ‘fit of insanity’ where an attack of insanity lasts for some time and then disappears. A person suffering from temporary insanity will be sober most of the time, but will experience mental illness at intervals, unknown even to him. For example- A is known to be a patient of temporary insanity. He commits the murder of B, while he was insane. And soon after doing so he becomes sober and realises what he has done. The insanity defence can be taken to acquit A from the murder charges of B.
2. Permanent insanity- As the name suggests, this type of insanity affects a person all the time i.e., unlike temporary insanity, permanent insanity means that the person is insane at all times without being sober at any of the time. For example- A is known to be a patient of permanent insanity. Now if he commits any crime, he will be able to take the defence of his condition since it is known that he is insane permanently.
History of Insanity Defence
This kind of defence has been in law since a long period of time. The first case of Insanity defence was recorded in England, in the year 1581. The court observed that ‘if a lunatic in the time of his lunacy kills someone, they cannot be held accountable’.
However, it was only in 1843 in the case of R v Naughton [(1843) 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722] that the English Courts were able to form the basis of what is known at present as modern-day insanity law. In this case, a man named McNaughton killed another man named Edward Drummond, mistaking him for some other person. But the jury considered him insane and thus acquitted him accordingly.
Thereafter, a discussion in the House of Lords came up about the defence of insanity and the following five propositions were construed as ‘McNaughton’s rules;
1. A convict will be presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved.
2. An insane person can be held liable for the punishment of the crime committed, if he/she knew at the time of commission of crime ‘what he/she was doing’.
3. In order to establish a defence of insanity, the accused by way of his/her insanity should not be in a position to know the nature and consequences of his/her act.
4. The delusions suffered by the accused must be real in sense.
5. The jury will be responsible for deciding if someone is insane or not.
Hence, these propositions became a precedent for the law concerning the defence of insanity.
Insanity Defence in Indian Laws
Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that ‘Nothing is an offense 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 doing wrong or contrary of law’. Thus, the section clearly says that the if it is proven that the person was insane at the time of commitment of crime, the accused can be acquitted.
Section 84 of I.P.C. is based on the following fundamental principles;
1.Actus Non Facit Reum Mens Sit Rea- This maxim means that nothing done is wrong in criminal law, unless it is done with a guilty mindset. It is evident that mens rea is compulsory for any act to be a crime in criminal law. A person cannot be punished if he did not have the intention to commit the crime (while suffering from insanity at the time when the crime was committed).
领英推荐
2.Furiosi Nulla Voluntas Est- This maxim means that a person who is suffering from mental illness has no free will and therefore, he cannot do anything wrong.The burden of proof to prove the insanity is always on the accused, who should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of crime, he or she was mentally insane and did not have any intention to commit that particular crime.
Relevant Case Laws
In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 16 SCC 109], the SC held that ‘Section 84 of IPC lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every mentally diseased person is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity.’
The Madras High Court in the case of Chellathurai v. The State (Madras) [MANU/TN/0236/2012],?stated the importance of a critical point of time and decided whether the defence of section 84 should be given or not when grave criminal offences occur. It concluded that it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra[(2002) 7 SCC 74] 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’
Pros and Cons to the Insanity Defence
Pros;
1. It acts as a cushion for people with mental issues who tend to commit crimes when they are insane. Since, these people have no intention of committing the same, inanity defence helps them escape liability.
2. As Benjamin Franklin stated, “It is better hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer”. Insanity defence upholds the same by acquitting the insane person who has committed a crime, which he did not intend to commit.
Cons;
1. Proving the state of mind of a person at any given point of time is not an easy task, and thus a person who is not insane may also take wrongful advantage of such defence, as it is evident that one cannot simply prove the mens rea so easily.
2. The case of insanity defence becomes more complicated as compared to others as it is not easy to prove that whether or not the accused has performed the crime, rather it is about the accused confessing his crime and stating that he has no idea about what he has done.
3. Some people might also misuse this insanity defence as way to escape from punishment. Since, it is a mammoth task to decide whether or not the person was in his/her senses while committing the crime, criminals sometimes wrongly tend to take the defence of insanity to prove their innocence in order to escape penitentiary.
Conclusion
Hence, the validity of insanity defence still remains a grey area in criminal law. Every concept has its strengths and shortcomings. The highlights in this kind of defence are that it acts as an advantage for insane and mentally ill people who may commit crimes due to unsound mind (without any mens rea). The challenge is that violent criminals take advantage of the loopholes in insanity defence as a plan to escape liability of the crime.
The logicality of insanity defence lies only in the womb of time, and the parley is still open.
Authored by: Anurag Singh, 5th Year Law Student at CLS, GIBS (Legal Intern at Oum Law Associates)