Theoretical overview
Insanity in its literal sense is considered as a lack of sense or meaning. It is often considered as a nonsensical remark or action. An act of a person of unsound mind is no offence, is what section 84 of IPC contemplates. 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 wrong or contrary to law
Its essential ingredients: –
- Act must be done by a person of unsound mind
- Such person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or, that the act was contrary to law or, that the act was wrong
- Such incapacity must be, by reason of unsoundness of mind of the offender
This section lays down the legal test of responsibility on cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that was contrary to law. Although he might be knowing the nature of the act itself.
There are four kind of person who can be said “non compos mentis” which means a non-sane person
- An idiot – non-sane from birth by a perpetual infirmity
- Non compos by illness
- A lunatic or a madman – mental disorder from a certain period but madness is permanent
- One who is drunk – state of intoxication at the time of the doing of the act
Unsoundness of mind, whether the want of capacity is temporary or permanent, natural or acquired, whether it arises from disease or exists from the time of birth, it is included in this exception of insanity from criminal liability.
Drunkenness is not an excuse but if it is not “delebrium tremons” then it can be excuse. If habitual drunkenness has created fixed insanity whether permanent or intermittent, it is the same as if insanity has been produced by any other cause and the act is excused.
Relevant section
Section 84, IPC – Act of a person of unsound mind – 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.
Important case laws
R vs. Mcnaughten – it was held that, every man is to be presumed to a sane and to posses a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible of his crime until the contrary is proved to their satisfaction and that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason.
Ashirudin Ahmed’s case – in this case, where the accused on being commanded in his dream by someone in paradise to sacrifice his own son, took his own 5 year old son to a mosque and killed him thereby thrusting a knife in the child’s throat and thereafter went straight to his uncle and told him as to what he has done. It was held that the accused was still entitled to the benefit of section 84 as even though he knew the nature of the act, he did not know what he was doing
Important legal terms and maxims
- Non compos mentis – it means a non-sane person
- Delibrium tremons – deliberate intoxication
Points to remember
- Insanity in its literal sense considered as a lack of sense or meaning
- 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 wrong or contrary to law
- Unsoundness of mind, whether the want of capacity is temporary or permanent, natural or acquired, whether it arises from disease or exists from the time of birth, it is included in this exception of insanity from criminal liability.
- Drunkenness is not an excuse but if it is not “delebrium tremons” then it can be excuse