1.
Whether The plea of Insanity Can Be Considered As A Defense That May Excuse The
Criminal Liability Of The Accused.
Mentally ill person is not punished for his crime, as he is devoid of free will, intelligence and
knowledge of the act.1 The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of this
mental condition at the time when the act was committed the fact that he was of unsound
mind earlier or later are relevant only to the extent that they, along with other evidence, may
be circumstances in determining the mental condition of an accused on the day of incident.2
1.1.1 Plea Of Unsoundness Of Mind As A Statutory Defense.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the acts of a person of unsound mind
and mandates interalia—
“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.”3
The essential elements of S.84 are as follows-
The accused must, at the time of commission of the act be of unsound mind.
The unsoundness must be such as to make the accused at the time when he is
doing the act charged as offence, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
that he is doing what is contrary to law.4
Where it is proved that the accused has committed multiple murders while suffering from
mental derangement of some sort and it is found that there is-
1) Absence of any motive,
2) Absence of secrecy
3) Want of pre-arrangement, and
4) Want of accomplice,
1
Subramaniam BV. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 22 nd Ed. New Delhi: BUtterworths 1999
p.663-669
2
Jagdish v. State of M.P (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 21: (2009)9 SCC 495.
3
Bhikari v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1
4
State of Maharashtra v. Govind Mhatarba Shinde, 2010 CR LJ 3586 (Bom).
it would be reasonable to hold that the circumstances are sufficient to support
the inference that the accused suffered from unsoundness of mind.5
As to insanity, it has been observed in Halsbury’s Laws of England 6 that “where it can be
shown that a person at the time of his committing or omitting an act, the commission or
omission of which would otherwise be criminal, was labouring under such a defect of reason,
from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act or omission or as
not to know that what he was doing was wrong then such a person is not in law responsible
for his act.7
Accused’s duty under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is twofold i.e., initially he
must establish that at the time of committing the act, he was non composo mentis- not of
sound mind.
In the second place, he must prove that the said unsoundness of mind was of a degree and
nature to fulfil one of the tests as laid down in the aforesaid provision, namely, that by reason
of such unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was
doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.8
In a case where exception under section 84 is claimed, 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 is doing what is either wrong or contrary
to law.9
The Supreme Court have also ascertained that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness
of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the
burden of proving this, lies on the appellant for claiming the benefit of the Section 84
provision.10
It is contended that in the present case-
Appellant was subjected to physical abuse by her husband on a usual practice.
5
State of Orrisa v. Duleshwar Barik, 2008 CrLJ 1065 (Ori) relied on ShamaTudu v. State, 1987 CrLJ 618 (Ori).
6
3rd Ed. (Simonds), Vol. 10 at p. 287
7
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563
8
Digendra v. State, 74 C.W.N. 231 at p. 241
9
T.N.Lakshmaiah v. state of Karnataka(2002) scc (cri) 103: dahayabhai chhagan bhai Thakkar v. state of Gujarat
air 1964 sc 1563: (1964) 2, crlj 472; bhikari v. state of up air 1966 sc 1: 1966 crlj 63 , relied on
10
Elavarasan v State RbIoP. 2011 (7) SCC 110. , Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra. 2002, 7 SCC 748. ,
Ratan Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.) 1970 (3) SCC 533.
On several occasions, Jones had sexual intercourse with appellant without consent.
She was stopped from sharing her problems with anyone.
Under threat and for protection of her child Stephanie decided not to share problems
and endured the beating, harassment and rape by husband on a usual basis.
On the night of 21st March, 2006 again Jones came drunk and started beating
Stephanie due to which she sustained certain injuries on her body.
After this incident she was not able to sleep the entire night thinking & weeping on
her situation.11
These circumstances created a situation where the physical and mental ailments including
sexual exploitation, quarrels and threat to the life of her child on sharing of the problem with
anyone had rendered her intellect weak because of which she lost control of her mind caused
death.
1.1.2 Facts, Precedent, Attendant and Antecedent must be taken into consideration.
With reference to the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dehyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar
v. State of Gujarat12, it is most humbly submitted 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 that was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the
state of mind of accused is the time when the offense was committed.
Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can only be established from the circumstances which
preceded, attended and followed the crime.13
It is mentioned in the facts that after beating the appellant when the husband went to his
room, the appellant was not able to sleep the entire night and was continuously weeping on
her situation, further, the appellant didn’t even try to escape after the commission of alleged
act, she sat in a drawing room holding iron rod in her hand.14
11
Moot Prop
12
AIR 1955 SC 1563
13
Sarju Merandy v. State of Bihar, (1978) 26 B.L.J.R. 267 at pp. 272-73
14
prop
In Emperor v. Somya Hirya, (1918) I.L.R 43 Bom. 134: Dil Gazi V. Emperor(1907) I.L.R 34
Cal. 686. it was observed by the court that the accused were acquitted primarily on the
ground that they had made no attempt to escape- a circumstance which was construed as
having proved their unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the offence.
Therefore, behaviour antecedent, attendant and subsequent of the event may be relevant in
finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the event.15
It is furthermore submitted that the proof of the insanity of the accused at the nick of time is
highly improbable and the same has to be judged from his conduct at the time of occurrence,
previous to the occurrence, and after the occurrence along with other attendant
circumstances.16
It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender’s mind at the time of the commission of
the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender
while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence.17
In the instant case, neither the appellant ran away nor did she try to hide the act. This clearly
shows that she was not conscious of her guilt.
1.2 Benefit of Doubt vis-à-vis Burden of Proof
The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of insanity may be stated as follows. 18
(1)The prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had committed
the offence with the requisite Mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rest 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 India Penal Code, 1860. 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
15
Kanna Kunnummal Ammed Kova v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1967
16
Tarseem Singh v. State, A.I.R. 1978 J. & K. 53 at p. 58
17
Bapu v. State of Rajasthan 2007 AIR SCW 3808: (2007)8 SCC 66.
18
State v. EmercianoLemos, AIR 1970.
prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Courts as regards one or more of
the ingredient 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 resting on the
prosecution was not discharged.19
Absence of a motive or forethought is considered criteria for determining unsoundness of
mind. When the accused pushed a four year old child into fire, there was no premeditation for
the act. His act was accompanied by manifestations of unnatural brutality and was committed
openly. He neither concealed nor ran away nor tried to avoid detention which showed he was
not conscious of his guilt. It was held that the accused was entitled to benefit of S.84 and his
conviction under S.302 was set aside.20
An essential observation was also made by the Supreme Court in the case
of Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P.21, whereby the Court observed that if from the materials
placed on record a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the
mental condition of the accused at the time of the occurrence of crime, he shall be entitled to
the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal.
It is humbly submitted that in the instant matter, there is every indication that the appellant
when she committed the alleged crime by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that she was doing was either wrong or contrary to law as
there wasn’t any attempt of running away from the home.
Prima facie, the burden of establishing plea of insanity is, by virtue of Section 105 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is on the accused. But as pointed out by Subba Rao, J in
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat22 , the evidence of that falls short of
providing insanity may still raise a reasonable doubt about the existence of the requisite
intention. Though the burden is on the accused, he is not required to prove the same beyond
all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities.23 The burden of
proof casted upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.24
19
Bhikari v.State of U.P. AIR 1966 SC 11; RoshanLal v. State of M.P. AIR 1971 SC 778; Sheralli Wali Mohammed
v. State of Maharastra AIR 1972 SC 2443
20
Ajaya Mahakud v. State of Orrisa 1993 CR LJ 1201 (Ori)
21
(1990) 3 SCC 190
22
(1964) 7 SCR 361
23
Sudhakaran v State of Kerala. 2010 (10) SCC 582. , T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka. 2002, 1 SCC 219.
24
Sudhakaran v State of Kerala. 2010 (10) SCC 582.
In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural
consequences of his act. The burden of proof, in the face of section 105 of the Evidence Act
is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the
same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities .The
onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the
offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence.25
It is also submitted that the modern rule is not so strict since the case of Woolmington v.
Director of Public Prosecutions26 in 1935, and it is now established that the prisoner need no
more than to adduce evidence which raises in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to
his insanity.
In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, this court has held that 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 may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of
the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offense, 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. 27 From the facts of
instant case there was a series of fights which later turned into physical quarrels in which
Jones was beating Stephanie and on several occasions, Jones also had sexual intercourse with
Stephanie without her consent which naturally impaired the cognitive faculties of mind of the
appellant because of which she was dragged in such a status of mind that she was incapable
of knowing the nature of the act and caused the death of husband and child.
The facts in record of the instant matter clearly shows that after the incident the appellant not
even tried to run away, which prima facie demonstrates that she did not have mens rea.
Furthermore, she sat in her drawing room holding iron rod in her hand which shows that she
never tried to hide her act. Had she even the slightest guilty mind, she would have never sat
back in drawing room till 8:00 a.m. as she knows that maid would come in the morning and
would see her. The accused, therefore, is entitled to acquittal of charge levelled against her.
25
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495.
26
(1935) A.C. 462
27
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat. 1964, 7SCR 361.
