SUBJECT FORENSIC SCIENCE

Paper No. and Title PAPER No.15: Forensic Psychology

Module No. and Title MODULE No.21: Forensic & Legal Aspects of Insanity

Module Tag FSC_P15_M21

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Learning Outcomes

2. Introduction

3. The Mental Health Act, 1987

4. Feigned Insanity

5. Procedure of Admission of Mentally Ill in Psychiatric Hospital

6. Discharge of Mentally Ill Person

7. Criminal Law and People with Mental Disorders

8. Civil Law and People with Mental Disorders

9. Insanity as Defense: Case Study

10. Summary

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 1. Learning Outcomes
After studying this module, you shall be able to know-

 About insanity and Mental Health Act, 1987

 About False and True insanity
 About procedure for admission and discharge of mentally ill from psychiatric
hospital
 About various Criminal and Civil Laws associated with mentally ill

2. Introduction
Insanity (lunacy or mental unsoundness or mental derangement or mental disorder) is defined
as a disease of mind or the personality in which there is derangement or impairment of mental
or emotional processes. The Indian Lunacy Act 1912 defined lunatic as an idiot or a person of
unsound mind. However, The Mental Health Act 1987 has replaced the Indian Lunacy Act
1912. The Mental Health Act 1987 uses the term “mentally ill person” instead of lunatic. The
Mental Health Act defines mentally ill person as “a person who is in need of treatment by
reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation”.

Insanity is an old term used loosely to denote any mental disorder or mental illness. The
Indian Penal Code employs the term unsoundness of mind while referring to insanity. It is
better to use term mentally ill person (as defined under Mental Health Act 1987) rather than
using term such as insane or lunatic.

3. The Mental Health Act of 1987

The Mental Health Act (MHA) 1987 was enacted for better treatment and care of mentally ill
persons. The Act made provisions with respect to management of property and affairs of
mentally ill persons. The Act also provides protection of human rights of mentally ill persons.
The MHA 1987 contains 10 chapters and 98 sections.

1. Chapter 1 deals with various definitions. Here the term mentally ill person is used
instead of insane or lunatic. Similarly instead of lunatic prisoner, the term mentally ill
prisoner is used and instead of mental hospital, the term psychiatric hospital or
psychiatric nursing home is used.
2. Chapter 2 provides procedure for establishing mental health authorities at Center and
State levels.
3. Chapter 3 deals with the procedure for establishment and maintenance of psychiatric
hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 4. Chapter 4 provides provisions for admission and detention of mentally ill person in
psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home.
5. Chapter 5 deals with the inspection, discharge, leave of absence and removal of mentally
ill person.
6. Chapter 6 deals with judicial inquisition regarding alleged mentally ill person possessing
property, custody of his person and management of his property.
7. Chapter 7 deals with liability to meet cost of maintenance of mentally ill persons
detained in psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes.
8. Chapter 8 deals with protection of human rights of mentally ill persons.
9. Chapter 9 deals with penal (punishments) ties and procedures.
10. Chapter 10 deals with miscellaneous particulars.

4. Feigned Insanity
 Also called as false insanity, fabricated insanity, artificial insanity
 In this condition, a person fabricates the sign and symptoms of insanity
 A person may feigned insanity to escape from punishment or with some other aim
 In most of the cases, it is easy to detect feigned insanity from true insanity but small
number of cases may poses difficulty.

Difference between True and Feigned Insanity

Features True insanity Feigned insanity

Onset Usually gradual Sudden/abrupt

Predisposing cause Present Absent

Motive Absent Present

Symptoms Usually uniform and Symptoms are often exaggerated and do

suggest a particular type of not confined to particular disorder
disorder

Facial expression Vacant, fixed, listless Frequent change, exaggerated grimaces

Observation Features continued Features exaggerated under observation

and absent when patient is not observed

Insomnia Often persist for prolong Cannot withstand sleep for more period
period

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 Exertion Can withstand fatigue and Cannot withstand fatigue and hunger for
hunger for prolonged period prolonged period

Personal hygiene Do not pay attention, habits Pretend but pay attention
are dirty and filthy

Frequent Does not mind examinations Resents because fear of detection

examination by
psychiatrist

5. Procedure of Admission of Mentally Ill in Psychiatric Hospital

Procedures for admission of mentally persons, in psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing
homes, are prescribed in chapter 4 of MHA 1987. The procedures are as follows:

 Admission on voluntary basis

 Any major person, who considers himself to be a mentally ill and desires to be admitted
to any psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing home for treatment, may request the
medical officer-in-charge of that hospital for voluntary admission as a voluntary patient
(Section 15 of MHA 1987).
 If the mentally person is minor, the parents or guardian of that person may request the
medical officer-in charge of that hospital for voluntary admission as a voluntary patient
(Section 16 of MHA 1987).

 Admission under special circumstances

 If the mentally person is incapable of expressing his willingness for treatment and
admission in hospital as a voluntary patient, an application on that behalf by a relative or
friend of mentally ill person can be made to the medical officer-in-charge of that
hospital. If the medical officer is satisfied that it is necessary to admit the patient as
inpatient in hospital, he can admit the patient.
 However, no such person admitted as inpatient be kept for a period exceeding 90 days
except in accordance with the other provisions of the Act.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
  Admission under reception order
 Reception order on application – an application for a reception order may be made, to the
Magistrate within the jurisdiction, by the medical officer-in charge of psychiatric hospital
or psychiatric nursing home or by the husband, wife or any other relative of mentally ill
person. If the Magistrate considers that it is necessary to treat the mentally person, in the
interest of his health and personal safety or for the protection of others, a reception order
may be passed by the Magistrate for that purpose. The Magistrate may also dismiss the
application.
 Reception orders on production of mentally ill persons before Magistrate.

 Admission as inpatient after judicial inquisition (inquiry)

A mentally ill prisoner is one who has become mentally ill while undergoing a sentence in
jail for some offence already committed. He can be admitted to the hospital on a reception
order from the magistrate after the person’s illness is medically certified.

 Admission as a mentally ill prisoner

An order under Sec. 30 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (3 of 1900) or under Sec. 144 of the Air
Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or under Sec. 145 of the Army Act 1950 (46 of 1950), or under
Sec. 143 or Sec. 144 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or under Sec. 330 or Sec. 335 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) directing the reception of a mentally ill
prisoner into any psychiatric hospital is sufficient authority for the admission of such person
in such hospital to which such person may be lawfully transferred for detention.

6. Discharge of Mentally Ill Person

1. Voluntary patients should be discharged within 24 hours of the receipt of request for
discharge made by patient or if minor, made by the guardian.
2. Mentally ill person received in psychiatric hospital on application made by his relatives
or friends in this condition the friends or relatives may apply to the Magistrate for his
discharge.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 3. The medical officer-in-charge of psychiatric hospital can order the discharge of any
patient, on recommendation of two medical practitioners one of whom should be a
psychiatrist.
4. A person detained on reception order can be discharged, if judicial inquisition finds him
of sound mind.
5. Any relative or friend of mentally ill person can make an application to the medical
officer-in-charge of the psychiatric hospital for discharge. The medical officer-in charge
forwards the request application to the appropriate authority (Magistrate) under whose
order the mentally ill person was detained. Such authority can pass an order of discharge
if the relatives or friend executes a bond to take proper care of such mentally ill person.

7. Criminal Law and People with Mental Disorders

 Suicide of Persons with Mental Disorder

Indian Penal code does not consider suicide as a crime but an attempt to commit suicide is
considered as a crime. One of the important elements of the offence is intention to harm i.e.
“mens rea”. A person has right to live but this right does not include the right to die. In case
of absence of mental element, an attempt to commit suicide would not be considered as an
offence. The abetment to commit suicide is an offence. However, the recent legislation has
struck down the Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 309 [1] after a long protest by the mental
health professionals.

 Theft and Persons with Mental Disorder

When a movable property is taken away from a person without his/her consent is considered
as an offence of theft. The essential element of theft is dishonest intention. Kleptomania is a
mental disorder in which a person has an impulse to steal without an apparent dishonest
intension. If such a person does an act which would be considered as theft in normal
circumstances but his/her act would not amount to theft to punish him in true sense. The
punishment for theft committed by a kleptomaniac should not be as prescribed in penal code
but code but the one in need of treatment.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 8. Civil Law and People with Mental Disorders

 Management of property and affairs of the insane

Chapter 6 of the Mental Health Act 1987 provides for the legal proceedings to be followed in
cases concerning the protection of person and property of the mentally ill person or by the
Advocate General of the State in which the alleged mentally ill person resides or by collector
of the District on behalf of the court of Wards, the district court shall direct an inquisition
whether the person alleged to be mentally ill is of unsound mind and incapable of managing
himself and his property. The court may also order inquiries concerning the nature of the
property belonging to the alleged mentally ill person, the person who are his relatives or such
other matter as seem proper to the court.

After being satisfied as to the mental illness of the person and related issues, the court can
appoint a manager/guardian to look after his property, granting him the necessary powers.
The court may, if it appears to be just for the mentally ill person’s benefit, order that any
property, movable or immovable, be sold, charged, mortgaged, dealt with or otherwise
disposed off as may seem most expedient for the purpose of raising money to be used for and
in the interest of mentally ill person.

 Marriage and Divorce

The Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) provides for conditions for a Hindu marriage.
Section 5(ii) stated that at the time of marriage, if either party:

a) Is incapable of giving a valid consent due to unsoundness of mind

b) Though capable of giving consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind
or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children
c) Has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity

Any marriage solemnized under any of the above circumstances shall be voidable and may be
annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Act. Another ground for nullity under
the same section is the fact that the consent for marriage was obtained by “fraud” as to any
material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 Divorce can be granted under Section 13 of the Act on a petition presented by either spouse
on the ground that the party has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such kind and to such an extent that
the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

 Person with Mental Disorder as a Witness

Any person can serve as witness in court of law unless the court him/her incapable of
understanding the questions put to him/her because of old age or any mind or body disease or
any other cause of similar type. Incompetency of a person to serve as a witness cannot be
made just because he/she has some mental disorder. But it has to be established that because
of such mental disorder, the person will not be able to understand the questions put to him.

9. Insanity as Defense: Case Study

In a case, the appellant was an employee in Stores Branch of Northern Railway Headquarters,
Baroda House, and New Delhi since 1958. In 1958 and 1959 he had altercations with other
clerks in the office. On May 20, 1959, his superior officer observed that he was prone to
loose temper in no time. In his moments of excitement he became dangerous and used to hit
his colleagues with anything that he could lay his hands on. But at the time of his greatest
excitement he could distinguish between right and wrong. After May 1959 he worked at his
desk as a normal man. In March, 1960 he again quarrelled with another clerk. He was
suspended and sent for medical examination. At this stage he was suffering from mental
illness. On October 12, 1960 he was examined by a psychiatrist who found that he exhibited
symptoms of acute schizophrenia and showed disorder of thought, emotion and perception of
external realities. The psychiatrist said that he was harbouring certain delusions. The nature
of the delusions is not stated. The appellant was put on a drug named Largactil and was given
convulsive electro-therapy treatment. On January 12, 1961, he was cured of his illness and
was advised to join his duties. On resuming his duties the appellant worked in the office in
the normal manner.

There is some evidence that on the morning of November 25, 1961 and the preceding night,
the appellant complained that he was unwell and took medicine. But on the morning of
November 25, he went to his office as usual. He was late in attendance and was marked
absent. He applied in writing for one day’s casual leave stating that he has an urgent piece of
work at home. Nobody notices any symptoms of mental disorder at that time. He left the
office at about 11:30 am and returned home alone. At 1:45 pm, He stabbed three members of
his family with a knife. He concealed the knife and a search for it has proved fruitless.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 At 2:45 pm, the investigating officer arrived at the spot, arrested the appellant and
interrogated him. He was the found to be normal and gave intelligent answers. On the same
date he was produced before magistrate. His brother was then present but the magistrate was
not informed that he was insane. On November 27, he was interrogated by an inspector. It
does not appear that he was then insane.

On November 30, the appellant’s brother filed an application before the committing
magistrate stating that the appellant was insane at the time of occurrence. The appellant was
later remanded to judicial custody. On receipt of another application from his brother he was
kept under medical observation from December 16 to December 23.On December 19 the
medical officer noted that the appellant was indifferent to his surroundings and personal
cleanliness, preoccupied in his thoughts muttering to himself, making meaningless gestures,
losing track of conversations, given to delayed and repetitive answers and unable to give
detailed account of incidents leading to his arrest. On December 23, he was declared to be
lunatic though not violent. The psychiatrist noted that the appellant had a relapse of
schizophrenia. From his attitude of talk and manner he was found to be aggressive. On
September 6, 1962, it was reported that he was cured and was in a position to understand the
court proceedings. The commitment order was made on January 4, 1963 and the trial started
in February 1963. The appellant was sane at the time of trial.

According Section 84, Indian Penal Code,

“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.”

To establish that the act done are not offences under Section 84 it must be proved clearly that
at the time of commission of the act the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was
incapable of either knowing that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law. The
question is whether the person was suffering from such incapacity at the time of the
commission of the acts. There is an evidence of a medical character that between October 12,
1960 and January 12, 1961, he was suffering from schizophrenia. He was completely cured
of this disease on January 12, 1961 when he resumed his normal duties. He had another
attack of his disease in the middle of December 1961. The attack lasted till September 1962
when he was found to be normal again. But it is to be observed that the defence witnesses do
not say that even during these two periods the appellant was incapable of discriminating
between right and wrong of knowing the physical nature of the acts done by him.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 After the appellant was cured of the disease on January 12, 1961, he was found to be normal.
He had highly strong temperament and was easily excitable. But there is positive evidence
that even at the moment of his greatest excitement he could distinguish between right and
wrong. From January 12 unto November 24, 1961, he attended his office and discharged
from his duties in a normal manner. On the morning of November 25 1961 his mind was
normal. He went to and from his office all along. He wrote a sensible application asking for
casual leave for one day. At 1:45pm he gave normal and intelligent answers to the
investigating officers. Nothing abnormal in him was noticed till December 16, 1961.

The thing in favour of the appellant is that though he had a motive for attacking one the
member but no clear motive for attacking the other two members. But there is clear evidence
to show that he knew that his act of stabbing and killing was wrong and contrary to law. He
concealed the weapon of offence. The knife could not be recovered in spite of the searches.
He bolted the front door of his house to prevent arrest. He then tried to run away by the back
door. He then tried to disperse the crowd by throwing brickbats from the roof. His conduct
immediately after the occurrence displays consciousness of his guilt. He knew the physical
nature of stabbing. He knew that the stabbing would kill and maim his victims. On a
comprehensive review of the entire evidence the two courts below concurrently found that
the defence of insanity under section 84 was not made out. We are unable to say that the
verdict of the courts below is erroneous.

If a person 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. He cannot be guilty of any criminal
intent. Such a person lacks the requisite mens rea and is entitled to an acquittal. But it is not
established in the present case that the appellant was suffering from this incapacity. The
general burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the actus
reus but also mens rea. The prosecution satisfactorily discharged this burden. The appellant
was not insane at the time of killing and stabbing and he knew the consequences of his acts.
He was held criminally responsible for the acts. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity
 10. Summary
 Insanity (lunacy or mental unsoundness or mental derangement or mental disorder) is
defined as a disease of mind or the personality in which there is derangement or
impairment of mental or emotional processes.
 The Indian Lunacy Act 1912 defined lunatic as an idiot or a person of unsound mind.
 The Mental Health Act 1987 uses the term “mentally ill person” instead of lunatic.
 Procedures for admission of mentally persons, in psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric
nursing homes, are prescribed in chapter 4 of MHA 1987.
 Indian Penal code does not consider suicide as a crime but an attempt to commit
suicide is considered as a crime.
 Kleptomania is a mental disorder in which a person has an impulse to steal without an
apparent dishonest intension.
 Incompetency of a person to serve as a witness cannot be made just because he/she
has some mental disorder.

FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER NO.15 : Forensic Psychology

MODULE NO.21: Forensic and Legal Aspects of Insanity