Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The of insanity is recognized across the globe as complete defence against the criminal
liability. The general principle of criminal law imposes criminal responsibility upon an
individual, for it is founded on the conviction that an individual who performs criminal
act/omissions is personally responsible for them and its ensuing consequences. The law
presumes that an individual is capable of mending his deeds within the limits prescribed
under the criminal statutes. Contrary to this general presumption of law, the defence of
insanity holds as an exception to an insane person. In order to hold a person criminally
responsible, guilty intention is a necessary facto and as such the capacity of the wrongdoer to
form such guilty intention is a relevant consideration in determining the criminal liability of
that person. The lack of consequential understanding capability provides an insane person
exemption under the criminal charge.1
1 'Mad Man is Punished by His Madness Alone' - A Defence of Insanity, G. V. Mahesh Nath, Audhi
Narayana Vavili, January 6, 2009 URL: - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1323691
good from evil2. This all came to a screeching halt in 1843 when the public was outraged that
Daniel MNaghten was acquitted of his charges for his attempted assassination of the Prime
Minister (accidentally shooting the Secretary to the Prime Minister who he mistook for the
Prime Minister of England at the time, Robert Peel).
Daniel M'Naghten was a woodworker who believed he was the target of a conspiracy
involving the pope and British Prime Minister Robert Peel. In 1843, M'Naghten travelled to
10 Downing Street to ambush Peel, but mistakenly shot and killed Peel's secretary. During the
ensuing trial, several psychiatrists testified M'Naghten was delusional. A jury agreed,
declaring him not guilty by reason of insanity3.
The public howled in outrage and, a year later, a panel of British judges set forth the legal
standard that has been used for 150 years and might come into play as Aron's trial
proceeds in Montgomery County. The M'Naghten rule says defendants may be acquitted only
if they laboured "under such defect of reason from disease of the mind" as to not realize what
they were doing or why it was a crime. Some call it the "right-wrong" test4.
The M'Naghten Rule provides as follows: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ...
that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the
time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing;
or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
2 (Weinreb, 1986)
3 The Insanity Defense: A Closer Look By John P. Martin, Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer, Friday,
February 27, 1998, URL: - http://www.washingtonpost.com
4 Ibid.
of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law
IPC, s. 84 deals with the law of insanity on the subject. This provision is made from the
McNaughten rules of England. In the draft penal code, Lord Macaulay suggested two
sections (66 and 67), one stating that nothing is an offence which is done by a person in a
state of idiocy and the other stating that nothing is an offence which a person does in
consequence of being mad or delirious at the time of doing it to deal with insanity. The Law
Commissioners in replacing these two provisions by IPC, S.84 have adopted a brief and
succinct form of the McNaughten rules. It has been drafted in the light of the replies to the
second and third questions, which is generally known as McNaughten rules.
But, IPC, s. 84 uses a more comprehensible term unsoundness of mind instead of insanity.
Huda says the use of the word unsoundness of mind instead of insanity has the advantage of
doing away with the necessity of defining insanity and of artificially bringing within its scope
different conditions and affliction of mind which ordinarily do not come within its meaning,
but which nonetheless stand on the same footing in regard to the exemptions from criminal
liability.5
The essential elements of the section assert that:1. An act must be done by an insane person resulting in harm. 2. The person doing that act at
that time must be suffering from insanity or mental abnormality or unsoundness of mind.
3. The accused person should be incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by
him because of insanity or 4. The accused person should be incapable of knowing his act to
be wrong or contrary to law because of insanity.
In the case of insane person, he may not understand the nature of the act. He does not have
the sufficient mens rea to commit a crime. Since a criminal intent is an indispensible element
in every crime, a person incapable of entertaining such intent may not incur guilt 6. An insane
person is not punished because he does not have any guilty mind to commit the crime. The
5 Huda, S.S. Principles of Law of Crimes in British India, as quoted in K.D. Gaur, Commentary on
Indian Penal Code, Universal, pp. 271.
6 Bishop Criminal law as quoted in Basus Indian Penal Code, 9th ed. 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 314.
English law on insanity is based on the McNaghten rules and the Indian Law that is codified
in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), s. 84, based on the McNaghten rules.
7 Gerald Robin, The Evolution of the Insanity Defense, 13 J. Contemp. Crim. Just. 224, 226 (1997).
8 Law Commission report, pp. 90.
CONCLUSION
The Indian Law on insanity is based on the rules laid down in the McNaghten case.
However, the McNaghten rules have become obsolete and are not proper and suitable in the
modern era.
The McNaghten rule is based on the entirely obsolete and misleading conception of nature of
insanity, since insanity does not only affect the cognitive faculties but affects the whole
personality of the person including both the will and the emotions. The present definition
only looks at the cognitive and moral aspects of the defendant's actions but ignores the
irresistible impulse that may be forcing him to commit that act. An insane person may often
know the nature and quality of his act and that law forbids it but yet commit it as a result of
the mental disease. The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report after considering the
desirability of introducing the test of diminished responsibility under IPC, s. 84 gave its
opinion in the negative due to the complicated medico-legal issue it would introduce in trial.
It is submitted that the Law Commissions view needs modification since it is not in
conformity with the latest scientific and technological advances made in this direction. There
are three compartments of the mind - controlling cognition, emotion and will. IPC, s. 84 only
exempts one whose cognitive faculties are affected. The provision is regarded as too narrow,
and makes no provision for a case where ones emotion and the will are so affected as to
render the control of the cognitive faculties ineffectual. The Courts must also adopt a broader
view of the Insanity and introduce the concept of diminished responsibility.