LEGAL INSANITY v. MEDICAL INSANITY

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Act of person of unsound mind

Section 84 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 

Under Section 84 IPC a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong.

There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind) i.e.-

• an idiot - An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like;
• one made non compos by illness - A person made non compos mentis by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under the influence of this disorder;
• a lunatic or a mad man - A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason and ; Madness is permanent; and
• one who is drunk.

Types of insanity

Every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. There is a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. In order to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC, the accused must prove legal insanity, and not medical insanity. Any person, who is suffering from any kind of mental weakness is called ‘medical insanity,’ however ‘legal insanity’ means, person suffering from mental illness should also has a loss of reasoning power. Furthermore, the legal insanity must be at the time of incident. In other words, it can be said that in order to attract legal insanity, a person should be incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or he is doing what is either wrong or either contrary to law. Thus, mere abnormality of mind or compulsive behavior is not sufficient to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

Burden of proof

. The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused.  It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts.

It is now well-settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this lies on the appellant.

Case laws

The Supreme Court in  MOHD. ANWAR VERSUS THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [2020 (8) TMI 909 - SUPREME COURT] has held that mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value. In order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual's ability to distinguish right from wrong. Further, it must be established that the accused was afflicted by such disability particularly at the time of the crime and that but for such impairment, the crime would not have been committed.

. The Supreme Court in HARI SINGH GOND VERSUS STATE OF M.P. [2008 (8) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in I.P.C. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which arises by virtue of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act with which he is charged.

In TUFAN @ TOFAN VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [2022 (8) TMI 305 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] the  appellant sat before the house of others.  His father asked him why he sat there.  Against this he began to attack him, his mother by lathi.  His mother died on his brutal attack.  His father filed a complaint before the Police Authorities in an injured condition.  The complainant was sent for medical examination.  The appellant was arrested and an FIR was filed.

The appellant did not examine any witness in the trial.  The Trial Court convicted the appellant and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-.  The appellant did not challenge the conviction order and also not challenged the findings that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but submitted that the appellant was lunatic at the time of incident, and his treatment was also done during the pendency of the Trial, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.  The State contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

The High Court considered that it would be appropriate to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased Phuliya Bai, mother of the appellant.  Only one question was put to this witness in cross-examination and it was admitted by this witness, that the injuries could have been sustained due to fall from height.  There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased could have fallen from any height. Thus, it is held that the death of deceased Phuliya Bai was homicidal in nature.  The High Court also observed from the deposition of witnesses and cross examination that the father of the appellant had sustained four injuries.

The next question considered by the High Court is that whether the appellant is the author of the incident or not?  The father of the appellant deposed that the appellant was mad for the last 10-12 years and he used to attack anybody. He did not show any improvement in spite of treatment.  When the appellant had assaulted his wife, he was in a state of madness.  Since his wife was old she died due to fall.  His daughter-in-law also contended that he was mad and taking treatment for the last 10 – 12 years.  At the time of incident also the appellant was in madness.  The other witnesses also deposed that the appellant was in madness at the time of incident. The Court also confirmed that the appellant sat before the house of others at the time of incident.  During the trial the appellant was found alright.  The appellant did not cross examine the witnesses and also did not produce documentary evidences to prove that he was taking treatment for his mental health.  The High Court held that the appellant is the author of the incident.

The High Court observed that the appellant had given repeated blows on the head of his mother Phuliya Bai and had also assaulted his father/complainant repeatedly on his head, leg, shoulder etc. Phuliya Bai lost her control. The appellant was arrested from the bus stand with lathi. At the time of arrest, the arresting officer, did not notice any mental illness. Even the Trial Court did not notice any mental illness on the date when he was produced for the first time. Even assuming that he was suffering from psychosis, then it is clear that it was not in continuity but was in intervals. Therefore, the moot question is that whether the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident or not?

The incident took place on 26.03.2010 at 1:00 P.M. The appellant was arrested on 27.03.2012 at 17:30 i.e., on the next day.   Therefore, it is clear that after committing the offence, he absconded. Thus, it is clear that he was able to understand the gravity of his act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of incident.

The High Court held that the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 302 and 307 of IPC is upheld.  The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.