1^st Year, Law Student,
Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur (India)

The criminal law includes a variety of punishments for offences that vary case to case depending on the circumstances. Yet, a person need not necessarily be punished for a crime they committed always. The defense in criminal law is used to absolve from the liability of the defendant. So, if the defendant is able to prove the defense then he can absolve the libality or reduce the punishment. These defenses depend on the situation that existed at the time, the accused's mens rea and the reasonableness of the action of the accused. A well-known tenet is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which implies that “an act does not render a person accountable without a guilty mentality”. While committing a crime, the offender's intention or guilty mind (Mens Rea) plays a crucial role. A person who is unable to comprehend the nature of the conduct he has committed is protected by the law known as the defense of insanity.

Concept of Insanity

Insanity basically means not knowing the nature of the act. While committing the act the person is not able to distinguish between right or wrong and is not able to comprehend what will be the repercussions of the act that is being committed. The level of insanity should be sufficient that the offender is incapable of understanding the nature of the conduct. When a person is mentally unsound, they are unable to comprehend the nature of their actions or recognize that they are wrong or against the law.¹ There is no precise definition of insanity. Insanity basically depends on different contexts and it describes different degrees of mental disorder.² The issue of insanity takes on unusual and even more crucial proportions in a heterogeneous nation like India where widespread illiteracy, ignorance, and economic inequality make it difficult to conduct a uniform test of guilt. ³

Origin of Insanity as Defense

The defense of insanity has been legal for many generations. However, it adopted a legal standing from the previous three centuries. ‘Insanity’ as a defense marked its beginning from the Arnold’s case.⁴
The Wild Beast test⁵ , the Insane Delusion test⁶ , the test of capacity to distinguish between right and wrong⁷, and other tests were used to legally pronounce someone insane. The groundwork for the historic Mc Naughten Rule⁸ was laid by these three tests.
According to the case's facts, Daniel Mc Naughten was accused of killing Edmond Drummond (UK PM) the then-Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel's personal secretary. Mc Naughten was suffering from the crazy belief that Sir Robert Peel, the prime minister, was the only cause of all of his issues. He also has delusions that Sir Robert Peel followed him. He mistakenly thought Drummond was Sir Robert and shot and murdered him as a result. Nine medical witnesses identified McNaughten as "an acute paranoid entangled in a sophisticated system of delusions."
Following his trial, acquittal, and House of Lords referral, a well-known set of guidelines for criminal responsibility—now known as the Mc Naughten Rule—was created.⁹
According to this rule the individual is believed to be sane unless the opposite is established, and the conduct must be accompanied by the defect of reason produced by the disease of the mind and the person was unconscious of the nature and character of the crime that basically means it talks about sane and insane state of mind.

Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Law

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) gives the provision for insanity. It states that “nothing is an offence which is done by 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 or contrary to law.” Under this section, a person is legally insane when he is incapable of knowing:
1) The nature of the act, i.e. the physical act, which is done or
2) That he is doing wrong or
3) That he is doing what is contrary to law.
Defense of Insanity is widely used in criminal law as main ingredients of crime is Mens Rea and Actus Rea but an insane person is not able to form the required mental element so they can take the benefit of the defense of insanity.

Types of Insanity

There are two types of insanity:
1) Legal Insanity: A person should not be able to differentiate between right and wrong and incapable of knowing the nature of the act that it is contrary to law.
2) Medical Insanity: A person who is suffering with any mental illness or any sort of mental weakness is referred to as "medical insanity.
There is a distinction between medical and legal insanity and the court is concerned with legal insanity so to claim defense of insanity the person should prove legal insanity rather than medical insanity therefore, only having an abnormal mind or compulsive behaviour is insufficient to get the benefits.¹⁰ In these cases, the court considers whether the accused was of unsound mind while committing the act. The medical profession may diagnose the person as mentally ill, but in order to claim the defense of insanity, the appellant must prove that their cognitive abilities were so impaired that they were unable to understand the nature of the act they committed. The unsoundness must be such that it causes the accused to be aware of his surroundings at the time the act is being charged.

Defense of Insanity in India

The defense of insanity can also be used in torts. Even if the defendant was unable to recognise that what he was doing was illegal because of mental incapacity, he would still be held responsible if he knew the nature of his actions. The defense is mostly applied in cases where physical act is necessary. But in situation where mental element is not necessary and where the person does not have some intent to commit that act than the defendant can skip the liability, if he is able to prove that he had some defective mental condition even if he is not completely unconscious and is aware of what he did. For example, in the cases of malicious prosecution deceit or libel in such cases the defendant shall be except from the liability if his defective mental state rules out the presence of the necessary specific intent or malice.

Cases

1. Breunig v American Family Insurance Co.: In a car accident, a tortfeasor collided with another vehicle (plaintiff). The owner of the other car filed case against the insurance provider (defendant). During the trial, the defendant argued that the tortfeasor was not negligent as a matter of law because the jury could not find that she had knowledge, warning, or should have had reasonable cause to believe that she might be experiencing a mental delusion that would cause her to suddenly lose control of her vehicle. Insanity should not be a defense in negligence cases, the plaintiff contended, and there was evidence of forewarning. The court in the case ruled that some forms of insanity do not invalidate liability for a negligent tort. Every case's liability issue is influenced by the type and severity of the insanity.¹¹
2. Queen Empress v K.N. Shah: Kader Shah the defendant he lost his property in the fire and he suffered mental shock because of it and suffered mental pain and stopped going for work for two months and on day he strangulated a boy of eight year who lives in his neighour and when the boy died, he hid his dead body in an empty house and then pleaded the defense of insanity he was not given the defense because he hide the body of the boy that means he knew the nature of his crime and know that what he was doing was contrary to law. ¹²
3. Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra: Defendant named Shrikant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenic although he was got treatment for around two years but his mental condition reoccurs sometimes one day in the morning there was a quarrel between husband and wife and the husband hit his wife on head with a grinding stone his wife died due to severe blood loss due to brain hemorrhage but Shrikant after hitting his wife did not try to escape and did not anything to hide the body and also he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was under regular treatment so he was given the defense of insanity. ¹³
4. Ashok Dattatraya Godase v. State of Maharashtra: The accused in the case killed his sister in law and attempted to commit murder of his mother he then ran away and start working as a laborer in the nearby village when the case was filed in the court he took the plea of insanity but in this case the court said that his running away from his village shows that he knew the nature of his act and Whatever he was doing was contrary to law and that’s why he ran away. And so, the court found that there was no merit in his appeal and the case was dismissed. ¹⁴
5. Dunnage v. Randall and another: Using gasoline, the deceased, who had florid paranoid schizophrenia, set himself on fire while visiting the claimant's house. In addition to being severely burned, he passed away at the site. The insurance that covered legal liability for accidental bodily injury to anyone, but excluded liability coming from willful or malicious activities on the part of the deceased, was the basis for the claimant's negligence lawsuit against the deceased's estate and the deceased's insurers. Since the dead had such severe mental disorder, the judge found that the deceased had not acted voluntarily and dismissed the claim. ¹⁵

Recent Trend of Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Law

From 150 years ago, only the capacity to choose between right and wrong and the concept of criminal liability have changed. It is impossible to say with certainty that what was wrong thirty years ago is still wrong today. It has been suggested that separating the jurors' decisions regarding control and rationality may increase the accuracy of their classifications.¹⁶ Many countries such as Germany, Argentina and Thailand have abolished insanity as defense because of its increasing misuse. The defense in insanity is being questioned because of many loopholes in the defense. The 42^nd Law commission Report suggested some changes but they decided not to change the contents of section. It is important to keep in mind that this section may be gravely exploited because it might be difficult for a judge to determine whether a defendant was of sound mind or not at the time of the offence. The scope of insanity is also increasing that can be considered as an important aspect in the section. In a case of Rajasthan High court in 2018 the High court observed that Female suffering from Premenstrual Stress Syndrome can also claim insanity.¹⁷ In a recent case in Bombay High Court held that the investigating officer have the duty to examine the mental issues of the accused immediately after apprehension, if he knows that there is some about the soundness of mind of the accused.¹⁸ The scope of the insanity and the loopholes in the defense need to be ponder upon for the defense to become more effective.

Conclusion

Defense of insanity is basically taken into account when the intent of the person is important and his/her mental capacity is taken into consideration as insanity is related to mental capacity of the person. Defecne of Insanity applies where the accused demonstrates that he was not mentally capable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or against the law at the time it was committed due to his insanity at the time. The accused's mental condition before and after the conduct is crucial in determining whether he was insane at the time it was committed. It is difficult to measure insanity of a person as there is no proper method to measure it. The defense is open to wide misuse. By many lawyers and the academicians defines of insanity is considered as a loophole as they are many chances of escape of liability through the defense of insanity. It cannot be denied that this defense have positive aspects as well. Though it can be seen that medical insanity can be prove easily but legal insanity whether the person know the nature of the crime is difficult to prove.¹⁹

---