TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION: WHY SHOULD THERE BE PROVISIONS
FOR LEGAL INSANITY?
B. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL
INSANITY
C. STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW
D. SECTION 84 IN PRACTICE
E. LACUNAE IN CONTEMPORARY PROVISIONS
Page 2
A. INTRODUCTION: WHY SHOULD THERE BE PROVISIONS FOR
LEGAL INSANITY?
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code states that, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.1
Further, criminal law poses the maxim of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, meaning
that an act does not make [the doer of it] guilty, unless the mind be guilty; that is, unless the
intention be criminal. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime.2
Concluding from the above, it can be reasonably inferred that, apart from the commission of
the actus reus, or the guilty act, the criminal must also have a guilty mind with the necessary
intention of committing the act, or the mens rea. However, it is necessary in law that even those
who lacked the intent to cause harm, or the lack of knowledge of the nature of their act, or the lack
of knowledge that they were acting contrary to the law, be held liable for at least the harm that
they’d caused, so as to ensure justice for the victims. But, punishing such people with the same
sentences prescribed for those who also held the intention and were aware of the nature of their act
would be unfair, giving rise to varying provisions to extend the arm of the law to cover such
scenarios.
1 The Indian Penal Code, § 300, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
2 Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary 55 West Publishing Co. 1968
Page 3
This holds true, especially for those of unsound mind, i.e, those incapable of comprehending
the nature of their act, or understanding that the act they were doing was of a wrong, or unlawful
nature. Hence, it is of vital importance that any just and fair legal system take into consideration, in
its purview, such “insanity” of the mind as well.
Page 4
B. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL
INSANITY
The law has held that "mental disease" is an indeterminate and vague term-including
conditions varying from mild indisposition to delirious, confusional states. As the law is primarily
interested in the question of responsibility and not in insanity per se, the law will have little to say
of particular mental disease entities themselves. The form of insanity is a question of mental
pathology and is not of particular interest to law; nor are the causes of insanity, the latter being in
themselves irrelevant to the question of responsibility. Law is concerned in the consequences
(conduct) resulting from insanity.So the ultimate object of a legal investigation is to determine the
question of responsibility or liability to punishment, especially as it relates to the time the individual
committed the criminal act. In law, legal insanity is commensurate with legal irresponsibility. Thus,
it is visible that there is a distinct boundary between the attitudes of law and medicine. Medicine
considers any and every abnormality: law, only the capacity of the mind to reason.3
Sanity is presumed where no evidence to the contrary is furnished by those defending the
accused. The legal presumption of insanity is the assumption that the accused had not the mental
capacity to form a criminal purpose, and to deliberate and premeditate on an act, which malice,
anger, hatred, revenge, or evil disposition might impel, or to know the nature and wrongfulness of
the act. It also assumes an absence of insane delusion. Needless to say, insanity cannot be inferred
intrinsically, from the nature of the act itself, but it must be proven extrinsically.4 Thus, to extend
the benefit of the defence provided by law, the onus is upon the accused to prove that, at the time of
the commission of the offence they were of unsound of mind. In this regard, the only matter the
court should take into consideration is whether the accused was legally insane or not, regardless of
medical insanity. In Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, the Hon’ble court observed that the term "insanity"
itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So,
every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A
3John F. W. Meagher, Crime and Insanity: The Legal as Opposed to the Medical View, and the Most
Commonly Asserted Pleas, Volume Number 14, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 46, 46-47, 1923
4John F. W. Meagher, Crime and Insanity: The Legal as Opposed to the Medical View, and the Most
Commonly Asserted Pleas, Volume Number 14, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 46, 47, 1923
Page 5
distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity.5 A Court must be concerned
with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity.
It is regarded that as good and evil principles both reside in man, in choosing he must be
guided by his good principles and withstand the evil ones. The tendency to evil is checked by the
restraining power of the ego. Otherwise his conscience punishes him. These truths are the
foundation of the doctrine of criminal responsibility. Society lays down certain external
punishments for acts opposed to morality. Law recognises in man a freedom of will if he has
understanding. Thus, understanding is the chief and fundamental key to assigning responsibility of a
wrongful action.6
5 Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66
6John F. W. Meagher, Crime and Insanity: The Legal as Opposed to the Medical View, and the Most
Commonly Asserted Pleas, Volume Number 14, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 46, 47-48, 1923
Page 6
C. STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN INDIAN LAW
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 recognises defences in chapter four under the heading General
Exceptions. Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC cover these defences. The law offers certain defences that
exculpate criminal liability. These defences are based on the premise that though the person
committed the offence, he cannot be held liable. This is because, at the time of the commission of
the offence, either the prevailing circumstances were such that the act of the person was justified or
his condition was such that he could not form the requisite mens rea for the crime.7
The concept of legal insanity, its implications and its repercussions are recognised by —
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which states 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.8
Upon a perusal of the above section, following are the conditions to attract application of
Section 84:
• The accused was of unsound mind;
• The accused was of unsound mind at the time he did the act and not merely before or after
the act; and
• That as a result of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act
and that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
It is worth further mentioning that this provision finds its basis in Mc Nauqhtens rules of
1843 in England, in which the following principles were cited:
1. If the person knew what he was doing or was only under a partial delusion, then he is
punishable.
7 Legal Service India E-Journal, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5965-an-analysis-of-
ipc-section-84.html , (last visited Feb. 26, 2024)
8 The Indian Penal Code, § 84, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1806 (India)
Page 7
2. There is an assumption that every man is prudent or sane and knows what he is doing and is
responsible for the same.
3. To establish a defense based on insanity, it must be ascertained, at the time of perpetrating
the act, the accused was in such a state of mind as was unable to know the nature of the act
committed by him.
4. A person who has sufficient medical knowledge, or is a medical man and is familiar with the
disease of insanity cannot be asked to give his opinion because it is for the jury to determine,
and decide upon the questions.9
9 Legal Service India E-Journal, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5965-an-analysis-of-
ipc-section-84.html , (last visited Feb. 26, 2024)
Page 8
D. SECTION 84 IN PRACTICE
In Indian Jurisprudence, apart from statutes, application of said statutes also contributes
majorly towards the development of law.
In the specific case of legal insanity, some major cases include Hari Singh Gond v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra,
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat among
others.
Starting with Hari Singh Gond, where the Court held that “Section 84 lays down the legal
test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There, is no definition of
"unsoundness of mind" in the IPC. 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 person, who is mentally diseased, 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…”10;
essentially establishing and differentiating legal insanity, from its counterpart, medical insanity. This
principle of legal insanity and the necessity of the presence of unsoundness of mind of the accused
at the time of commission of the offence for the application of Section 84 was reinforced by the
Court in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand.11
The Court in Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra discussed the significance of the
distinction of medical and legal insanity, however more significant was the fact that the Court held
that “the crucial point of time for considering the defence plea of unsoundness of mind has to be
with regard to the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed collated from
evidence of conduct which preceded, attended and followed the crime”12.
Next, in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, it was held that Section 84 embodies the fundamental
maxim of criminal law i.e. actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt
10 Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109
11 Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495
12 Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 718
Page 9
unless done with a guilty intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must
concur; but in the case of insane persons, furios is nulla voluntas est (no culpability is fastened on
them as they have no free will).13 Further, in an expression of the crucial point of time at which
insanity must be proven to attract application of Section 84 of the IPC, it was held that the section
itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the
act, the 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 that even if he did not know it, it was either
wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding
whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence
takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into
consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived
merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the
cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility.14
In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, the doctrine of burden of proof in
the context of the plea of insanity was stated, using 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.15
13 Bapu Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 8 SCC 66
14 Bapu v. State of Rajasthan 2007 8 SCC 66
15 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563)
Page 10
E. LACUNAE IN CONTEMPORARY PROVISIONS
Despite the existence of statutory provisions for the plea of insanity, and Indian Courts
clarifying and widening the scope of said provisions, there appear to be major lacunae as far as the
plea of insanity is concerned in the Indian legal system.
Starting with a lack of wider recognition of circumstances that may not constitute the current
statutory definition of insanity, or unsoundness of mind, but are still borne out of circumstances
involving poor mental health. For example, the Battered Woman Syndrome, a principle recognised
by the Court in Manju vs. State of Assam. Battered Woman Syndrome is a psychological tool to
understand the mental state of battered wives which is a term given to wives who, after enduring
severe torture for a prolonged period, kill their batterers because of the psychological impact or end
the cycle of prolonged violence. Further, the Court held that Battered Woman Syndrome dilutes the
requisite mens rea as the continues torture led her to commit the act not the guilty mind.16 The fact
that recent scientific developments in the realm of mental health such as the above example, have
yet to be recognised in Indian statutes, will surely pose an obstruction to justice.
Another criticism of the current statutory provisions is that they find their basis in ancient
principles such as Mc Naughten’s rules, leading to them lacking contemporary contextualisation,
having a rather ambiguous nature, and often being redundant in contemporary context.
Further, Section 84 of the code ought to be amended to incorporate the partial defense of
diminished responsibility for insanity, similar to the defense of diminished responsibility as
accepted under the defense of insanity as specified by English criminal law.
Finally, while the current statutory provisions merely provide a defense for those of unsound
mind, it is necessary that as a part of the development of the legal system, there must be the
introduction of provisions for individuals, after commission of the offence, have been recognised as
a danger to themselves and to society.
16 Manju Lakra vs. State of Assam, 2013 SCC OnLine Gau 207
Page 11
