Short Essay on Insanity under Indian Criminal Law !
Under the Indian Penal Code, insanity has been accepted as a defence to a charge of crime. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code extends immunity from criminal liability to a person, who, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is unable to know the nature of the act or is unable to know that what he is doing is “either wrong or contrary to law”.
image source: 3.bp.blogspot.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In recognising such a state of mind on the part of the accused as a complete defence to criminal responsibility, the law postulates that it is futile to punish a person who does not know the nature of his act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. “The mind, in the real sense, does not accompany the physical act. To punish the conduct of such a person would be abuse of law without any practical utility. If a person does not possess knowledge about the nature of the act then he will not appreciate what he is being punished for. And, if he does not appreciate that much, then the objective of punishment will not be achieved. In fact, punishment is intended to act on the mind of the person punished and to alter the direction in which his mind has been working so far. If the mind was not in substance a party to the conduct, then the question of changing the direction of mind cannot arise.”
In cases where the defence of insanity is set up under Section 84 of I.P.C., it is material to consider the circumstances which have preceded, attended and followed the crime; whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act, whether it was done in a manner which showed a desire to concealment of consciousness of guilt and whether the accused made any efforts to avoid detection and whether after arrest he offered false excuses or made false statements etc.
Where in the morning the accused behaved normally, went to and came from his office alone, wrote an application for leave and at 01.45 p.m. killed a child and stabbed two others and on his arrest soon after 2.45 p.m. gave normal and intelligent answers to the Investigating Officer, it was held that the accused was not insane at the time of commission of offence and therefore cannot be allowed the defence of insanity under Section 84 of I.P.C.
The Supreme Court in Paras Ram v. State of Punjab, held that the ceremonial beheading of a four year old boy by his father or relatives to propitiate some blood thirsty deity, does not show or prove insanity of any kind.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Meh Ram v. State, soon after the incident the accused was behaving normally and was talking coherently and admitted having killed the deceased as he thought her to be an evil spirit and there was no previous history of mental illness. The plea of insanity was, therefore, not available to the accused.
Where the accused who had committed gruesome murder of two ladies without any reason or motive, had some previous history of mental illness and it was in evidence that he was not behaving normally at the time of his arrest and had suffered an attack of insanity during investigation, the defence of insanity under Section 84 of I.P.C. was held to be applicable in his case.
In Tolaram v. State of Rajasthan, the accused at the time of commission of the act knew the nature of the act he was committing and on noticing the witnesses coming towards him made an attempt to leave the house by jumping from a wall on an adjoining house, the plea of insanity was rightly denied to him.