DJN Blogs

Vishalakshi, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University.
Date: 12.06.2021
INSANITY AS A DEFENSE: A LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS
INTRODUCTION
Criminal Justice System gives fair and equal chance to
both victims and the accused to prove their point and it not only provides
provisions for punishment of accused but also allows them to take defence under
certain provisions. One such defense primarily mostly used in criminal
prosecution is the Defense of Insanity. This insanity defence is an assumption
that during the commission of crime, the defendant was suffering from severe
mental illness, therefore he was not capable for knowing the nature of crime
that he had done at that time. Law holds a person guilty of any crime if he has
done that with wish and free will. Criminal Law is based on the principle of “Actus
Non Facit Ream Nisi Mens Sit Rea” which
means the physical act does
not make a person guilty, the mental component in the form of evil intent is
equally important and “Furiosi nulla voluntas est” which means a
person with mental illness has no free will. Therefore, for making a person liable one must do some guilty
act and he must have a guilty mind for doing the offence. But if a person is
insane, he is incapable of forming rationale decision as to what is good or
contrary to law and when a person cannot decide what is right and what is
wrong, in law it is considered that in such situation a person cannot have a
guilty mind and hence he should be acquitted. So, this plea of unsoundness of
mind or insanity saves the person from capital punishment.
A person who suffers from mental illness or disorder due
to various psycological factors, anxiety,
depression, or suffers from mental illness since its birth is considered to be
insane. But only proving mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity as
a proof. The insane person has to supply the
court with proper evidence similar
to that of “preponderance of the evidence” as in the civil case which claims him
to be insane. The burden of proving insanity lies on the defence.
But the insanity as defence has always been in question,
because many criminals take undue advantage
of insanity as a defense and plead false insanity in order to get rescued from
being punished during their trials. In criminal justice system the insanity
defence is generally taken as an excuse rather being a justification of facts
and the crime. Hence, it is used as a loophole in the judicial system in order
to escape from the punishment during the trial.
HISTORY OF INSANITY DEFENSE
The concept of insanity is in existance since ages and
ancient Greece and Rome has also been found using this defence in their courts.
But it was first recognised as defence to criminal charges in 1581 by English
Legal Treatise when it was stated that “If a madman or a natural fool, or a
lunatic in the time of his lunacy” kills someone, they cannot be held
accountable. The British Courts developed different tests such as “wild beast”
test in 18th century, in which the defendants were not to be
convicted if they understood the crime no better than “an infant, a brute, or a
wild beast.”1 This test led the first formal basis for law of
insanity and was followed by various other tests which were also deduced to check if a person
is legally insane such as the Insane Delusion test2, the Good and Evil test wherein it was
to be seen that the person who had committed some crime has the ability to
distinguish between good and evil.3 These three tests were the early
laws relating to Insanity Defence and laid the foundation for the landmark
Mc-Naughton Test.
The British Courts in R v.
McNaughton4, devised the McNaughton’s Test which
formed the basis of modern-day Insanity Law and is also the basis of Section 84
of the Indian Penal Code. McNaughton who was the accused in this case killed
Edward Drummond mistaking him for some other person. He took the plea of
insanity that his state of mind was not sane and hence, the court acquitted
him. This created a huge uproar and after this judgment in 1843, there was a
discussion in the House of Lords, where a five-point proposition was made.
These five propositions were construed as the McNaughton’s rules. These propositions became precedent for the law
concerning the defence of insanity. The rules emphasized the observation of
“understandability” of an accused in a case where he/she has done something
wrong. It is a test of knowing what is right and wrong.
The propositions were as follows:
1.
Every
convict shall be presumed to be sane at the time of commission of offence until
the contrary is proven.
2.
If
at the time of commission of offence, the insane person have the knowledge of
what he/she is doing, then he/she would be liable for punishment.
3.
To
take the plea of insanity the accused person should not be in a position to
know the nature and consequence of his/her act.
4.
The
delusions to which the accused is suffering should be real.
5.
The
Jury in English law would be held responsible for deciding if someone is insane
or not.
INSANITY AS A DEFENCE IN INDIAN LAWS
Indian Law also gives a person the
defence of insanity under section 845 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
which is primarily based on the McNaughton’s rules. Section 84 of IPC states
that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing
it, by the reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of understanding the
nature and consequence of the act he/she is doing and that the act is
prohibited by law. Hence,
Section 84 of IPC affixes no culpability on persons with mental illness because
they can have no rational thinking or the necessary guilty intent.
Therefore, section 84 of the IPC can be
broadily divided into two main categories:
1.
MAJOR CRITERIA: It consists of the medical and mental requirement of the
ill person which means a person should be suffering from some mental illness or
disorder at the time of the commission of the offense.
2.
MINOR CRITERIA: It consists of loss of knowledge that a person at the
time of the commission of an offense is incapable of knowing nature, wrongful
acts, and that his/her actions are contrary to the law.
MEDICAL INSANITY V/S LEGAL INSANITY
Section 84 of Indian Penal Code,1860 lays down the legal test
for mental illness but the statute fails to define the term ‘unsoundness of
mind’ or ‘insanity’ term has nowhere been precisely defined in the code.
Medical insanity is different from legal insanity and therefore, who suffers
from mental illness is not always exempted from the punishment because the
courts are concerned with legal insanity and not the mental insanity.
Differentiation in simple term could be the disease of mind is
legal insanity where functioning i.e., quality of brain is affected and medical
insanity could be disease of brain which is the malformation of brain such as
in size or weight. When a person suffers from legal insanity, he/she losses
his/her reasoning power at the time of commission of crime. This may also be
called as ’defect of reason’. For insanity to qualify for legal insanity any
one the 3 essentials of Section 84 as mentioned earlier must be fulfilled and
only then the accused can seek a defence by way of insanity.
In Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs State of Rajasthan6,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion,
irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no
protection under Section 84 IPC.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Mishra v.
State of Jharkhand7, held
that Section 84 IPC is only for legal insanity and not medical insanity and
therefore a person suffering from mental illness is not exempted from criminal
liability.
POSITIVE ASPECT OF INSANITY
A person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind is
similar to a child who does not know about his/her acts and the consequences
that will follow thereof. Hence, convicting that person who himself does not
know what he is actually doing would be against the morality. Therefore, this
defence is life-giver for those who are suffering from mental illness. The
defence does not provide for capital punishment. In insanity, the person
accepts the act committed by him but although confessed, is incapable of
forming an understanding about the gravity of what he has done and therefore,
harsh punishment such as rigorous imprisonment or death penalty would be
unjustifiable.
NEGATIVE ASPECT OF INSANITY DEFENCE
This defense has become the easiest way to escape from
punishment and now-a-days it is used by the sane accused as well. Insanity is
used as a false ground by the accused as it is very difficult to examine
whether the person was of sound mind or unsound mind at the time when the crime
was committed. This way the case depends upon the prudence of the judge and in
one way or the other the law losses its essential purpose. The plea can be abused by sane persons. Though
guaranteed as a privileged defense for the insane by the judicial system many
sane people take undue advantage and abuse this privileged defense. It is
therefore because of this misuse several countries like as Germany,
Argentina, Thailand and many counties in England have abolished this defence.
Also, one of the major drawbacks of this defence is that
the burden of proving the insanity lies on the accused and is very difficult to prove this defence. Medical
insanity is easier to prove as compared to legal insanity which is a very big
challenge because the party has to provide concrete evidence to prove the
insanity. It is extremely difficult to fulfil the essentials of Section 84 IPC
to show legal insanity and it is so because of this difficulty many legitimate
cases is charged and punished.
INSANITY AS LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS
The insanity defence is guaranteed by the Indian Legal
Statute to protect the insane person who by the reason of unsoundness of mind
and unable to figure out the difference between right and wrong. Insane persons
by using this defense would get very lesser punishment or even may get
completely absolved from punishment. But for that purpose, the insane man has
to prove that they are insane and mentally unsound in the eyes of law by
producing fair evidences which declares them unsound or incapable of having
knowledge about their actions and its consequences.
But this defense is misused by the criminals of sane mind
who have absolute knowledge about their actions and the consequences and who
can differentiate between the right and contrary to law to get acquittal by the
law for the crime they commit. The criminals misuse this defense when they
commit heinous crimes like rape, murder, abduction etc., which has strict and
rigorous punishments such as capital punishments.
The offenders who are of sound mind in their full
capacity of knowledge commits offence and they plead insane in-front of the
court because they think they can easily get away with the punishment after
committing some heinous crime if they will take insanity defense. And the most
shocking part is that, at times these people even manage to get this defense by
proving themselves insane. They manipulate the reports, threaten the doctors
and prove their mind unsound. One major reason for this could be the corruption
and poverty which are root evil of this nation.
The powerful man sitting in their AC chambers mishandle their powers and
abuse the judicial system at ground level. Sometimes even the evidences and
witnesses are manipulated by the offenders and false evidences are produced
before the court with help of political hands and financial aid in this
country.
Insanity has become a loophole for criminals. Proving
insanity is not an easy task and it takes lots of time to satisfy the mind of
judges that the person is suffering from unsoundness of mind, which causes
delay in justice delivery system. This delay leads to abuse of judiciary by the
hand of accused. Criminals who willingly abuse the justice delivery system by
manipulating the statute are well acquainted with the actions and consequences
their actions follow, they have full knowledge and motive in doing what they
have done such as injury, grevious hurt, or murder or rape and hence perform
the act having intention to do so. The defense of insanity gets them easy
acquittal and possibly no punishment is charged on them, because the condition
of mind of a person can be changed on piece of paper but predicting whether the
person is sane or not is very difficult. After proving all the evidences in the
court, it is upon the discretion of judge whether to pass judgement in the
favour of the accused person or against him and whether he should be punished
or not?
The criminals in most of the cases are so powerful due to
their political linkups and financial strength that they threaten judges and
even bribe them in order to escape from the punishment. Some criminals are so
eminently dangerous threat they take away the lives of people who serve to the
legal system with proper and lean motive. It is also seen that these people and
their family members in some cases end up loosing their goodwill and reputation
in the society. The offenders use this defense without and fear and think that
now they are free and no one can do anything to them. They think justice lies
below their feet and legal system is sleeping. Even after having so many
amendments and strict laws due to some loopholes in the judicial mechanism, the
criminals manage to escape from crimes by using this insanity defense which is
the biggest loophole in the court of law.
CONCLUSION
As it can be seen that insanity defense has become a
loophole for the criminals and a popular defense to abscond from the crime. It
is next to impossible to prove the mental stage of a person at the time of
commission of a crime hence it becomes easier for the criminals to manipulate
the papers and the evidences. Law tells that medical insanity and legal
insanity is different but how and what should be th exact parameter of judging
a person whether he is legally insane or not, the law does not tell us about
this. Insanity has not been clearly defined under section 84 so that a clear
distinction should be made to decide the stage of person at the time of
commission of crime. This lacuna added fuel to the fire which makes this
defense loos its stark, and all that matters are word-games. What makes the
situation more complicated at times is that in this defense the accused clearly
accepts the commission of crime but evades from accepting the knowledge of
consequences and this raises brow of any right-minded rationale person in the
society. Now the remedies available to cope up
with these lacunas are the formation of more straightforward laws and tests.
If we talk about the cases which are
happening underground of insanity subjects are more disasters in comparison to
others to some extent crime reached to the peak legal discussion or agenda in
order to sustain precise judgment. Thus, there is a need to expand the scope and ambit of
Section 84 of IPC, 1860 in order to avoid future occurrence of such crimes and
criminals using the same as a loophole in order to be set free and avoiding any
punishment for the same under the trials.
RFERENCES
1 R.
v. Arnold. 1724, 16 St.Tr.695
2 Hadfield Case. 1800, 27 St.Tr.128
3
Bowler’s case.
1812, 1 Collinson Lunacy 673
4 R v. McNaughton, (1843) 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722
5 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1433889/
6 MANU/SC/7754/2007
7 (2011) 3 SCC (Cri.) 232
https://www.lawtreeclub.com/the-insanity-defense-loophole-for-criminals/
Recent Comments