PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION SOLVED | LAW OF CRIMES - UPSC LAW OPTIONAL MAINS - QUESTION 1(a) - 2021 QUESTION PAPER
The defense of legal insanity under criminal law is recognized as an exception to criminal liability, rooted in the principle that only those capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions can be held culpable.
Section 22 BNS ( Section 84 IPC ) :
The accused must be suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence.
The unsoundness must render the accused incapable of:
Understanding the nature of the act, or
Realizing the wrongfulness of the act.
Mere medical insanity is not sufficient; the unsoundness must satisfy the legal criteria set by the BNS.
Relation to M’Naghten Rules :The M’Naghten Rules (1843), Principles Laid Down In Mc’naghten Case:
Every person is presumed to be sane, until the contrary is established.
To establish the defence of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the crime, the person was so insane as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
The test of wrongfulness f the act is in the power to distinguish between right and wrong, not in the abstract or in general, but in regard to the particular act committed.
Medical Insanity:
| Legal Insanity:
|
Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971):
Facts: The accused, suffering from schizophrenia, killed a relative.
Held: The court ruled that mere mental illness does not constitute legal insanity unless it satisfies the criteria of Section 22 BNS( Section 84 IPC ) . The burden was on the defense to prove the accused’s incapacity to understand the act.
Burden of Proof| Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act( 102 BSA ), 1872: The burden to prove insanity rests on the defendant, as insanity is an exception.
Key Factors to Assess Legal Insanity
|
State Of MP V. Ahamdullah | In this case the accused had murdered his mother in law to whom he bore ill-will in connection with his divorce. It was proved that he did the act at night having got into the house by scaling over a wall with the aid of a torch light and entered the room where the deceased was sleeping. All this showed that the crime was committed not in a sudden mood of insanity, but one that was preceded by careful planning and exhibiting cool calculation in execution and directed against a person who was considered to be his enemy. Then again, there was a mood of exultation which the accused exhibited after he had put out her life.
Judgement: In these circumstances the Supreme Court rejecting his plea of insanity, convicted the accused of the offence of murder
CONCLUSION | For an accused to claim exemption under Section 22 BNS( SECTION 84 IPC ), they must establish legal insanity by demonstrating that their mental condition at the time of the offence rendered them incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act. Courts rigorously assess evidence, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and the accused’s conduct, to distinguish legal insanity from mere medical insanity. The defense hinges on showing that the cognitive faculties required for criminal intent were absent at the time of the act.
Comments