Volume 7 Issue 6 June, 2017
Consultation Liaison Psychiatry Focus: Forensic Medicine
A crime is a voluntary act which is an outcome of intent to cause an evil consequence. There may be no crime of any nature without an evil mind. The concurrence of act and guilty mind constitutes a crime. This theory has its basis in the Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, which means the act does not make one guilty unless he has a guilty intention.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. This provision is based on Mc Naughten rule enacted in England.
Section 84 IPC states: “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”
Section 84 IPC – Interpretation
‘At the time of doing it’
The accused should be laboring from defect of reason due to disease of mind at the material time the offence took place. Plea of insanity at the time of trial will not benefit the accused. The example of which is the judgement given in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat. In the aforementioned case, the accused was charged and convicted under section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife. The plea of insanity was rejected by trial court and Supreme Court as there were no signs of insanity immediately after the incident. Court also laid down criteria which has to consider the state of mind of accused at the time of committing crime and motive behind the act, previous history of mental illnesses and events immediately after the incident.
‘Unsoundness of mind’
No definition for unsoundness of mind is provided in penal code. The term includes temporary or permanent, natural or supervening mental illness which could be from disease or present from birth. However the extent of which, should be such that he should not know the nature of the act, or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. This means that law recognizes only those conditions as insanity which impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind. Partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of psychopath, can offer a ground for medical insanity but will not constitute legal ground for acquittal. Law insists on regarding insanity as a disease of intellect, whereas it is usually a disease of the affective or emotional spheres of the mind. Hence, it can be said that medical proof of insanity is not legal proof for acquittal.
‘Nature of the act’
If accused did not know the nature of the act he was committing then he is not responsible for it. Similarly, if he knew the nature of the act but did not know whether it was wrong or contrary to the law he is not liable. On the other hand, if the person did not know the nature of the act but knew that it is wrong and contrary to law he is held responsible.
As in Ashiruddin Ahmed Vs The King , when an accused sacrificed his son in a mosque on being commanded in dream to do so, it was held that though he knew the nature of the act but did not know that it was wrong so was given benefit. On the other hand, in Paras Ram Vs State of Punjab, where a father and relatives sacrificed his four-year old son to please the deity, they were held liable as the court said that such barbaric actions don’t prove insanity.
Burden of proof
The principle that the court follows is ‘every person is sane unless contrary is proved’. Hence, the onus of proving insanity is on the person who is pleading it as a defense. To prove that mental derangement led to crime there must be absence of motive and secrecy and there should be no prearrangement or accomplice.
JSS Medical College, Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeswara University, Mysuru
