Insanity

Sec. 84
 S. 84. Act of a Person of-unsound mind

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.
 Comment

• A mad man has no will (furiosi nulla voluntas est) and he is like one
who is absent (furiousus absentis low est). In fact, a mad man is
punished by his own madness (furiosus furore sui puniter).
• Section 84 clearly gives statutory recognition to the defence of
insanity as developed by the Common Law of England in a decision of
the House of Lords rendered in the case of R. v. Daniel Mc Naughton
(1843 RR 59: 8ER 718(HL).
 Kinds of Insanity

Law groups insanity into two broad heads, namely:

(a) Dementia naturalis, i.e., individuals who are insane from birth, and
(b) Dementia adventitia or accidentialis, i.e., an individuals who
becomes insane after his birth.
 Defence of Insanity
Section 84 deals with the defense of insanity. The word ‘insanity’ has
been used in English Law whereas, in Indian Law the words
‘unsoundness of mind’ have been used. Section 84 is said to be based
on R v. Daniel McNaughton, 1843.
Following conditions are essential for the applicability of Section 84:
1. There should be pre-existing medical insanity.
2. Medical insanity must exist at the time of the commission of the
offence.
3. However, the real defence lies in proving legal insanity.
 Essential Ingredients of Section 84

• In order to seek protection of Section 84, IPC, it is necessary for an

accused to prove that he, because of ‘unsoundness of mind’, was:
incapable of knowing the ‘nature’ of the act, or that the act was
‘contrary to law’, or that the act was ‘wrong’.
• The crucial point of time of such incapability due to unsoundness of
mind is the time where he committed the offence.
• His insanity prior or subsequent to the commission of the offence is
not in itself adequate to absolve him form the criminal liability.
 Unsoundness of Mind
• Medical insanity is different form legal insanity.
• The insanity, for the purpose of Section 84, should be of such a nature that it
completely impairs the cognitive faculty of the mind, to such an extent that he
is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he is doing is wrong or
contrary to law.
• It is only the legal and not the medical insanity that absolves an accused form
criminal responsibility.
• A good illustrations to be found in the case, mentioned by Sir James Stephen,
of the idiot who cut off the head of a man whom he found sleeping because, as
he explained, it would be such fun to watch him looking about for his head
when he awoke.
• The word ‘wrong’ is interpreted to mean a moral wrong and not a legal wrong
since Section 84 uses the alternative phrase ‘contrary to law’.
 Unsoundness of Mind at the Time of
Committing the offence
• The law is concerned only with insanity that existed at the time of
committing the offence.
• The existence of unsoundness of mind prior to the commission of the
offence or after the commission of the offence is neither relevant nor
per se sufficient to bring his case within the exception provided by
Section 84, though it may be taken into consideration for the purpose
of deciding whether the accused was insane.
 Legal Insanity
For the applicability of Section 84, medical insanity is only a pre-condition,
the accused gets the defense only when he is able to establish legal insanity .
(1) the incapacity of the accused of knowing the nature of the act and
(2) the incapacity of the accused to know that what he is doing is either
wrong or contrary to law. The latter situation may consist of two parts,
but that does not make the situation itself two in number.
For example, if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law
but he did not know that it was wrong, that would not be a case
contemplated by Section 84.
The use of the words "either" and "or" in "that he is doing what is
either wrong or contrary to law" is significant. What is contemplated is
the incapacity of the person to know either. If he knew either, then,
naturally, he would not get the protection of Section 84.
 Propositions Simplified

• Medical insanity + existed at the time of

commission of the offence + incapacity to know
the nature of the act = complete defence
• Medical insanity + existed at the time of
commission of the offence + incapacity to know
what he is doing is wrong and contrary to law =
complete defence
• Medical insanity + existed at the time of commission of the
offence + Capacity to know the nature of the act + Capacity
to know what he is doing is wrong or but incapacity to know
that it is contrary to law = No defence
• Medical insanity + not existed at the time of commission of
the offence + Capacity to know the nature of the act +
Capacity to know that what he is doing is contrary to law +
Incapacity to know what he is doing is wrong = No defence
 Nature of Medical Insanity

Section 84 uses the phrase ‘unsoundness of mind’. It is merely medical

unsoundness (insanity) which is merely a precondition. Real defence lies
in proving legal insanity.
• In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495, the
Supreme Court opined that “unsoundness of mind” has not been
defined in the Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent
to insanity. But the term “insanity” carries different meaning in different
contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder.
• Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto
exempted from criminal liability.
In State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1
SCC 602
 it was observed that it is clear that a person alleged to be suffering
from any mental disorder cannot be exempted from criminal liability
ipso facto.
 The onus would be on the accused to prove by expert evidence that he
is suffering from such mental disorder or mental condition that he
could not be expected to be aware of the consequences of his act.
 Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental
deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss
of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate
documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be
entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.
 Schizophrenia
• The disease of Schizophrenia was recognized as a disease affecting soundness
of mind and the defence was extended in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh
(1983) 2 SCC 27 and Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra
(2002) 7 SCC 748.
• However, in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495, [3 JB]
the Supreme Court opined that these two cases are clearly distinguishable on
facts. Though the accused may have been suffering from paranoid activity in
the past or may have suffered after commission of offence but the facts of the
case and surrounding circumstances do not suggest that the accused was
incapable of knowing the nature of the act or what he is doing is either wrong
or contrary to law at the time of the commission of the offence. Hence,
accused cannot be given the benefit of Section 84.
 Epileptic Insanity

• The question of epileptic insanity came up rather indirectly before the

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961
SC 998, wherein the accused killed his mother in law at night by
scaling up the wall.
• The accused said that he suffered epileptic fit in the past. From the
observations made by the Supreme Court in the instant case, it may
reasonably be inferred that disease of epilepsy may be a ground of
exemption under Section 84 but it should result into legal insanity i.e.
the mental state as required by Section 84.
 The Crucial Point of Time When the Accused should be Insane
• Proof of existence of insanity at a time prior to the commission of crime will not help the
accused.
• In Jai lal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1969 SC 15, the accused was a schizophrenic who was
treated and cured.
• He stabbed a one-and-a-half-year-old child who died and injured two others.
• A plea of insanity was raised as a defence. But, the court took into consideration his
subsequent behavior, as he hide the knife, locked himself in the house to prevent arrest an
attempted to run away from the back door. He also tried to dispense the crowd by throwing
brickbats from the roof.
• The Supreme Court held that his conduct displayed consciousness of guilt.
• He knew the physical nature of stabbing and that it would kill.
• His conviction under Section 302, IPC, was confirmed and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
However, previous history of mental condition was considered as a relevant piece of evidence
in determining the question whether insanity of the type mentioned in this Section existed, at
In Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State
of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
• The Supreme Court held that in determining whether the accused has
established that his case comes within the purview of Section 84, the
Court has to consider the circumstances which preceded, attended
and followed the crime.
• The relevant facts are the motive for the crime, the previous history
as to the mental condition of the accused, the state of his mind at the
time of the offence, and the events immediately after the incidents
which throw a light on the state of his mind.
 Burden and Standard of Proof

In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563,

the Supreme Court, after referring to Section 101, 103, 105 and Section 4 and
5 of the Evidence Act, laid down 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.
• 4. The same was reiterated with full force by the Apex Court in
Bhikari v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1 [3 JB]
 How Burden is to be discharged?

• By production of medical evidence and other relevant factors.

• Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the Penal
Code will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that
what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law.
• Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon
of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as
to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him.
 Irresistible impulse, Mental Agitation,
Annoyance and Fury

Irresistible impulse, mental agitation, annoyance and fury all merely

indicate loss of control and not indicative of unsoundness of mind.
In Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66, the Supreme Court said
that mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse
or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under
Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based on
the outdated M'Naughton rules of 19th century England.
 Special Procedure for Trial

• Special procedure is prescribed for the conduct of trial of accused

who is of unsound mind or insane. Chapter 25 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 prescribes elaborate procedure for trail of a person
of unsound mind (Section 329 and 330).
Thank you