Introduction:
In India , “insanity defence” is method of criminal law that is used to protect an accused offender from criminal responsibility. The hypothesis claims that since the individual was mentally ill at the time of the crime, he/she was unable to comprehend what he/she was doing. While it is true that mental illness is just one component of the idea of insanity, this case falls under that notion since the defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time of the alleged crime. In order to substantiate an insanity claim, the burden of proof is on the defendant and they must provide the court with evidence equal to "preponderance of the evidence" as in the civil case. The theme of this essay is to discuss the fact that the law considers people to be insane, a gap in the current court system. This essay examines the legal idea of insanity and how it has become a flaw in the current court system.
What is Insanity Defence?
An insanity defence is when a defendant admits to the crime but argues that they were not mentally capable of understanding it because of their sickness. As a consequence, it functions more as an explanation than a justification for his or her actions.
Insanity is defined as a defence under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The statute, commonly referred to as the Law of Insanity, protects the mentally ill and provides them with a defence against criminal liability under Section 84. This law is built on the premise that when an insane person commits a crime while experiencing a fit of insanity, he or she lacks the ability to understand what they are doing, and so the activity is prohibited. For these reasons, it has been shown that insanity law is crucial in assessing an insane person's mental condition and, in proper circumstances, exempting them from criminal prosecution.
Types of Insanity:
Temporary Insanity- Temporary insanity is a defence that asserts that a person was abnormal during the criminal act but recovered their sanity after the crime was committed. This legal defence is often employed to defend those charged with committing felonies.
Permanent Insanity- Permanent insanity is a defence that a person was abnormal from past couple of years and he or she is not in a stage of recovery.
Origin of Insanity Defence:
The defence of insanity has been used in Greece and Rome for many centuries. It is said in a 1581 English legal text that if someone who is mentally sick and kills someone is not held liable, then the insanity defence is also not applicable. There was additional growth in jurisprudence in the 18th century, resulting in the "Wild Beast" test, under which defendants were found not guilty if they comprehended a child.[1] The first time the test was conducted formally was the origin of the Law of Insanity and thus was the beginning of the Insanity Defence.
After the “Wild Beast Test” numerous additional test were developed to determine a person whether he/she is mentally fit or not such test are Delusion test,[2] the Good and Evil test where it should be seen that a person committing certain crimes can discriminate between good or evil. These three test formed the famous Mc-Naughton test.
McNaughton's Test was created in the English Courts in the case of R v. McNaughton[3] and it established the foundation of current insanity law and the IPC section 84. This is an example of mistaken identity, where a guy called McNaughton mistakenly murdered an Edward Drummond whom he thought was someone else. The court ruled that he was not in a fit condition of mind to be tried, and hence his acquittal was appropriate. However, a jury found him to be crazy, and so concluded that he should be admitted to a mental hospital. Following this 1843 court verdict, the House of Lords had set-up the rule which states that "at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong."
Insanity as a Defence in Indian Law:
The insanity defence is provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which says, "No person shall be held to answer for any conduct done by him which, at the time of the doing thereof, he did not know, and which, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was not capable of being understood. “Let us examine the section in depth. In this part, proof of insanity is insufficient; it must be shown that the person was insane at the time of the crime, even if he was aware of the demonstration's concept but was unaware that it was improper or illegal. In 'actus non-facet ream miso menus sit rea,' an illegal demonstration should be completed with a guilty mentality. The admonished importance, as well as the anticipation of the charged to do the specific, are similarly necessary to establish their liability for the admonished. Additionally, men's rea is critical for comprehending the gravity of the crime done. Despite the fact that the statement that there is no wrongdoing without a guilty mind is subject to a special exemption a particularly stringent risk, under severe duty, it is not necessary to establish that a deceased had the necessary men's rea for the conduct committed.
The Supreme Court observed in Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh[4] that Section 84 of the IPC establishes the legal standard for determining liability in instances of claimed mental illness. There is no such thing as a definition of ‘sound mind.' In any event, there is no meaning for the word 'insanity.' It is a term that refers to a variety of mental illnesses in which the person is judged to be at danger of recurrent episodes of insanity.
The defendant in the case of Kamala Bhunia vs West Bengal[5] was charged with murdering her husband with an axis. A complaint was brought against her, alleging that she was crazy at the time of the event, and she didn't try to escape or destroy the evidence against her. The prosecution had failed to ensure that men's rea was present at the time of the crime. Later, they profited from section 84, and showed signs of insanity when the crime was committed.
Burden of Proof:
A person under the law is considered to be sane and assumes the ability to reason enough to be held accountable for their actions until there is evidence to the contrary.[6] This manner Insanity Defence diverges from the general law, making it necessary to apply for it under the law. When considering a claim for an insanity defence, the burden of proof is always on the accused, who must show that he/she was "legally" crazy at the time of the offence. In order to succeed, the accused must establish that he/she could not have known the nature of the crime or that his/her action was illegal. In the case of Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra[7], the Honourable Supreme Court ruled that the burden of establishing the unsoundness is placed on the side seeking to use Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The burden on the accused in T.N. Lakshmiah v. State of Karnataka[8] is to simply present the preponderance of probability, as in civil proceedings.
Conclusion:
As of today, we can agree that the Insanity Defence has become a loophole for criminals as the most common defence to avoid prosecution for any crime. It is very difficult to establish any individual's psychological state at the time the crime was done. The Indian Judicial System's redundancy is also to fault here, since it merely adds gasoline to the fire, making this argument lose its sting, and all that counts are word-games. These situations are more complex than others since the accused agrees to commit a crime yet avoids the penalties, which raises the brows of any right-thinking person. Crimes done at the stage of unconsciousness/insanity become very difficult to establish in trial or court for the defence team or other party since it directly implies that the individual is crazy or was discovered unconscious. As a result, we must investigate such situations as soon as possible by assembling teams of experts in the area of medical research and lawyers.
References:
- R. V. Arnold. 1724, 16 St.Tr.695
- Hadfield Case. 1800, 27 St.Tr.128.
- R. V. Mc Naughton, (1843) 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722.
- Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109.
- Kamala Bhuniya v/s State of West Bengal. C.R.A 274 of 1995.
- State of M.P. v. Ahmadull. AIR 1961 SC 998.
- Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748.
- T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka. (2002) 1 SCC 219.
