Insanity as defense in criminal law is a strategy used to prevent someone accused of a crime from being prosecuted. The defense rests on the claim that the accused was unable to understand their actions because they were experiencing a mental disorder at the time of the offense. Understand that insanity is a legal word and that being mentally ill alone does not prove someone is insane.
In order to prove insanity in a civil proceeding, the burden of proof rests with the accused to present evidence that satisfies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Examining insanity as defense in criminal law as well as how it has evolved into a legal loophole in the present legal system is the need of the hour.
Insanity in IPC
- According to Insanity in IPC, it is a disturbed or unsound mental state mind that leaves a person incapable of acting, signing documents, giving permission, etc.
- Regarding the criminal side, the defense of insanity is discussed in Section 84 of IPC. It says that nothing that is done by someone who, at the time of the act, is incapable of recognizing the nature of the conduct or that he is carrying out what is either illegal or against the law is considered an offense. It is interesting to point out that this regulation refers to “unsoundness of mind,” which is a synonym for insanity of mind, rather than “insanity.”
Section 84 IPC Ingredients
The Section 84 IPC ingredients are as follows:
- The act must be performed by an insane individual.
- At the time of the conduct, the accused was mentally unwell, which could be the reason for their incapacity.
- Such a person was incapable of understanding the purpose of the act or that it was illegal or immoral.
Differences: Legal Insanity vs Medical Insanity
- The Indian Penal Code of Section 84 describes the requirements for mental illness in terms of law.
- Legal insanity is more limited than medical insanity since many illnesses that meet medical standards for insanity do not meet the requirements for legal insanity as defined by the IPC.
- “Legal insanity” describes a person who was incapable of reasoning at the time of perpetrating a crime, whereas “medical insanity” describes a person who suffers from a mental disorder.
- The key element is the perpetrator’s mental condition at the time of the action; if any of the three requirements listed in Section 84 are met, the accused may be able to claim insanity.
Insanity Cases in India
The various insanity cases in India are as follows:
- In the case of Ratan Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh, according to the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been charged with mischief by fire with the purpose of causing damage (Section 435). The psychiatrist said that he was insane.
The trial court decided that there was no way to punish the defendants. Following the state’s filing of an appeal, the High Court overturned the trial’s verdict and found the accused accountable for the crime. Subsequently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the appeal, ruling that the accused was crazy in accordance with Section 84 of the IPC.
- In the case of Shrikant Bhosale v State of Maharashtra, the wife of the police officer was fatally struck in the head by a stone. The constable was charged with murder. He presented the court with proof of a history of mental illness in his family and pleaded the defense of insanity.
As a result, the court ruled that the constable had a mental impairment and was incapable of understanding the nature of the offense he had committed. By successfully raising the defense of insanity under the virtue of Section 84 of the IPC, the constable was released from prosecution.
Insanity as Defense: Its Immense Misuse
- Given that the defense of insanity is a potent tool for avoiding prosecution for a crime, there is a very high likelihood that it will be effectively misused.
- It is impossible to demonstrate that the individual was unable to comprehend the seriousness of the crime. It can be used by defense attorneys to exonerate those who have committed deliberate crimes.
- In this case, the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that a sane individual does not clear himself by incorrectly utilizing the defense in his favor.
It is clear that offenders frequently invoke the insanity defense to evade punishment for any crime. It might be challenging to ascertain a person’s mental state at the moment of the act, though. The Indian court system’s shortcomings render this defense ineffective. A serious issue arises when criminals confess to their crimes but use this argument to avoid punishment. As a result, tighter regulations must be put in place to handle these kinds of problems, and meaningful changes in this field are long needed.
