Authored By: Devanshu Nautiyal, B.A.LL.B (Hons), Law College Dehradun, Uttranchal
University, Dehradun, & Co-Authored By: Dr. Ramakant Tripathi, Assistant Professor in Law, Law College Dehradun, Uttranchal
University, Dehradun
ABSTRACT
The main application of the insanity defence is in criminal cases. It is predicated on the idea soffence, they were experiencing a serious mental illness that prevented them from understanding the nature of the crime and distinguishing between right and wrong behaviour. The concept of insanity defence is not clinical or medical; rather, it is legal. Thus, the mere presence of a mental illness is insufficient to establish insanity. Similar to a civil case, the defendant must establish the defence of insanity by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Determining legal insanity is difficult, and successfully defending it in court is even more difficult. In this article we are having a look towards the general exceptions given to an accused under Indian Penal Code 1860. We will discuss the various exemption provision and also, we are going to have a comparative study of defence of insanity with other nation of the world.
KEYWORDS
Paranoid schizophrenia, Cognitive impairment, legal insanity, medical insanity.
INTRODUCTION
Indian Penal Code 1860 is the criminal code deals with the offences and its requisite punishment. But there are some exemptions given under this code to prevent the miscarriage of justice in court of law. In order to prevent you or someone else in your situation from being punished, chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code 186 was introduced in India. It either shields you from criminal prosecution or renders an offence not criminal. Here, the accused not only protected by necessity but there are also other exemptions available in cases when the accused is mad, drunk or falls into the other category under chapter IV of Indian Penal Code 1860. The chapter of general exception exempts certain acts to be covered under the purview of an offence, which means these are the defenses available to an accused to absolve his criminal liability. Chapter IV of Indian Penal Code consists of 31 sections from section 76 to 106.
GENERAL EXCEPTION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
The mistake of fact is the first exception under this chapter. We all know the maxim, “ ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat” which means ignorance of facts excuses but ignorance of law is not an excuse. According to section 76, an accused under Indian Penal Code 1860 may receive protection if the prosecution charges him with committing a crime without his knowledge and he acted in good faith, believing himself to be required by law to carry out the crime. But on the other note, if an accused under this code pleads ignorance of the law, he will not be given any exemption under section 76 of the Indian Peal Code 1860.[1] In the case of M.H George v. State of Maharashtra[2], accused attempted to smuggle gold via India despite not being an Indian citizen. It was illegal to transport so much gold via India, according to the new rule. He was concealing 34 KG of gold in his jacket. The ruled that M.H George was held liable under the under this section even though he was obliged to know the law and that ignorance of it was not a valid defence. The exemptions to the judges and courts are covered under the second general exemption. Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code that any action taken by a judge while carrying out their judicial acts or official duties and they honestly believe is permitted by law is not punishable. As per the section 78 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, a person who acts in compliance with courts of justice’s judgement or order is not violating the law as long as they have a sincere belief that the court has jurisdiction. The foundation of Section 80 of the IPC is the idea that an act is not criminal or offense unless it is committed with the intention of committing a crime. Accidents must be unexpected and unintentional; they cannot just happen by accident. According to this provision, anything done accidentally or by bad luck—that is, without intending to commit a crime—while doing a legal act in a legal way and using all legal methods with due care and diligence won’t be considered an offense. It should be emphasized that the terms misfortune and accident both reflects harm done to another individual. While an accident refers to harm done to another person, misfortune refers to harm done to both the first party and the unrelated party.[3] The term “criminal intention” describes the deliberate plan to infringe the law without having a legitimate cause or defense.
On the other note, some activities could seem illegal and even when they are not intended to be criminal. The fundamental idea of Section 81 is that it is allowed to select the lesser of two inevitable evils in sudden and dire situations where one of them must happen. Determining the existence of such conditions in a given case is a matter of fact. It’s crucial to remember, though, that someone cannot purposefully commit an offence in order to avoid more injury. For example, Section 81 cannot be taken as a defense if a thief intentionally poisons the stolen toddy in order to catch the thief but unintentionally harms innocent people who consume it. Sections 82 and 83, generally known as the Law of Infancy, shield minor criminals from prosecution. A youngster under the age of seven is deemed to be doli incapax which law presumes him unable to commit crime. It implies that a youngster of the kind is not capable of committing a crime and is not able to develop the required mens rea to do so. This speculation is conclusive and stems from the realization that he lacks the enough mental capacity to comprehend the nature and ramifications of his actions and, consequently, to create the required mens rea.
DEFENCE OF INSANITY: AN OVERVIEW
The defense of insanity has been around for many centuries, but it has only recently attained legal status over the past three. A person could be found legally insane by passing a number of examinations, including the “test of capacity to distinguish between right and wrong,” the “wild beast test,” and the “insane delusion test.” The historic Mc Naughten rule was developed on the results of these three tests. Glasgow woodturner Daniel Mc Naughten assassinated Edward Drummond in 1843 after mistaking him for Sir Robert Peel. Evidence was given to support Mc Naughten’s belief that he was being persecuted by the Tories, despite the fact that he had been completely erroneous about this for some time. He had to be persuaded to enter a plea of “not guilty,” and it was often from the start of the proceedings what kind of mental state he was in. The trial was halted by the judge after seven medical witnesses testified that Mc Naughten was entirely mad. The jury came to a special judgement without summarising or retiring, and Mc Naughten was taken into custody and placed in Bethlem Hospital. Following that, five propositions known as the Mc Naughten rules were drafted.
The defense of insanity has a lengthy history that begins with Hebrew law and is further strengthen by Plato and Aristotle (Stimpson 1994). Mens rea, sometimes known as “guilty mind,” was the primary focus of the initial examinations, which were designed to know whether or not a candidate met the requirement for criminal liability. Mens rea and actus reus, or the “guilty act,” are necessary for someone to be found guilty of a crime. When taking account, the insanity defence, the question is typically not whether the defendant committed a guilty act but rather whether or not he realized the offense was wrong. In order to use insanity as a defense under criminal justice system, legal insanity must be established as opposed to medical insanity. Legal insanity differs from medical insanity in that not all levels of insanity are admissible as defences in court. In GERON ALI v. King[4], the Calcutta High Court established two standards, one of which must be met in order to qualify for the benefit of section 84:
UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ACT’S NATURE: When the cognitive faculties are impacted by insanity, this defense is came into being. This is a defense since the person loses all control over his physical activities if his insanity impairs his cognitive faculties.
IMPERATIVE TO DETER MEANING OR RIGHT: This defence is taken in cases when partial insanity has been produced by any mental illness. This includes delusional situations where the person is aware of the nature of the behaviour but is unable to make a difference between what is right or wrong.
When a defendant confesses to committing a crime but argues that their mental illness prevented them from understanding what they were doing, they can use the insanity defense. This offers a justification rather than a defense for their actions. According to Section 84 of the Indian Peal Code 1860, a person suffering from a mental disease may assert this defense as a way out of criminal liability if their insanity prevented them from understanding the consequences of their conduct or the nature of the offence. When assessing an insane person’s mental condition and releasing them from prosecution, the insanity defense has proven useful.
MEDICAL INSANITY VS LEGAL INSANITY
The legal standard of responsibility in situations when a person with mental illness is accused of committing a crime is outlined in Section 84. The IPC contains no particular definition for “unsoundness of mind.” Nonetheless, this statement has generally been interpreted by the courts as being the same as insanity. However, the word “insanity” itself lacks a definite definition, has diverse hidden meanings depending on the situation, and refers to different seriousness of mental illnesses. It is not the case that everyone with mental illness is automatically free from criminal liability. It is important to distinguish between medical and legal insanity. Medical insanity is not of concern to a court while on other side, legal insanity is.
The Supreme Court held in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand[5] that “a person suffering from a mental disease is not immune from criminal culpability” and that “Section 84 IPC only applies to legal insanity, not medical insanity.” In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh[6], the Supreme Court ruled that “the legal standard of responsibility in situations involving purported mental illness is established by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.” The term “mind soundness” is not defined. But the word “insanity” has no real meaning. This phrase refers to a scope of mental illnesses where the sufferer is thought to be entirely capable to frequent episodes of insanity. When the offense was committed is the critical moment for figuring out the accused’s mental state. The facts under Section 84 IPC are the individual who is mentally sick and the reason behind the crime, the accused’s prior mental health history, his mental state at the time of the offense, and the events that followed the occurrence that may have put light on his mental state are additional facts that must be taken into account.
MORAL NECESSITY OF INSANITY DEFENCE
If an offender was not accountable for their crime, the blame by the state and imposition of punishment would be essentially unjust and would violate the Due Process of law. This basic idea is applied by the affirmative defense of legal insanity, which protects mentally ill criminals whose illness prevented them from having a reasonable understanding of their actions at the time of the offense. This is a fundamental yet important principle. The insanity defense has really been recognized by ancient law and English law since the 14th century. It was widely accepted in the US until the latter decades of the 20th century, and state and federal legislators continue to largely agree that the defence must be retained there. The ability to think is the fundamental basis for accountability and skilfulness in both morality and the law. Of course, the exact cognitive impairment one must show varies depending on the situation. In the criminal justice system, an offender who suffers from a severe mental illness and is unable to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct is not entitled to full guilt and punishment; instead, in an extreme enough situation, they must be absolved from liability. Furthermore, the laws and morality are insufficient to guide such offenders, thus they cannot be properly deterred. It is inconsistent with both retributive and deterrent notions of just punishment to refuse to pardon some mentally ill offenders.
In order to support this claim, it must be demonstrated that the cognitive faculties that direct our behaviour should have been influenced by insanity. Insanity affects not only our cognitive faculties but also our emotions, which drive our actions. However, Indian law, like English law, only permits exceptions for cases of insanity that affect only cognitive faculties; cases in which insanity affects emotions are not taken into account for exemptions. This is because, in cases where insanity affects our cognitive faculties, the person is not able to control his actions and is unaware of the repercussion of those actions.
It is not necessary for a person to meet both of the essential requisites listed in this section in order to employ the defense of insanity, they can still do so even if they are able to identify the nature of the act but are unable to determine what was unlawful or against the law. This exemption’s most significant usage is when a mental illness has partially rendered a person insane. Conditions such as delusions, for example, prohibit an individual who is sane but suffers from delusions from being discharge on the grounds of insanity unless the delusions led the individual to believe things that, if true, would have justified his actions. Rarely are defences eliminated due to shifting social forces; instead, there are frequently strong reasons to divert from long-held beliefs about criminal guilt. This is not to argue that, as knowledge advances contemporarily, the defence of mental impairments breadth or language cannot also evolve. Nonetheless, the defense itself plays a crucial role in acknowledging that people with mental illnesses or psychological conditions that significantly affect their capacity for rational decision-making shouldn’t be held to the same legal propositions as people without such impairments.
Conviction and punishment are justified only if the defendant deserves them. The basic prerequisite for desert in all contexts, legal and otherwise, is the offender’s responsibility as a moral agent. Any condition or circumstance that purely compromises responsibility must therefore negate discharge; a just criminal law will incorporate such conditions and circumstances in its doctrines of excuse. A sequential, purely consequentialist theory of criminal justice, while conceivable, is not so attracts morally that few persons, including most critics of the insanity defense, adhere to such a position. Moreover, our present system clearly rests on a much different basis: our system of criminal justice accepts desert, whether viewed as a defining or limiting principle, as basis to guilt and punishment.
The basis of the insanity defense is moral justification, which is recognized in both criminal law and day to day social interactions. It seems to us that the two most important qualities are minimal self-control or lack of conviction (a volitional capacity) and minimal rationality (a cognitive capacity) are the prerequisites to criminal liability. Because they do not have these capacities, young children are not held accountable for the harms they create. In a similar line, individuals who inflict injury while extremely distress about a personal tragedy, for example, are usually viewed as less accountable and guilty for the harm than they would have been if they had acted ordinarily rationally and under full control of senses.[7]
The most pertinent thing to understand, though, is that since determining the standard is not a scientific matter, mental health science cannot establish the legal degree for irrationality or coercion in the context of legal responsibility. The benchmark is a social and moral one, to be determined by the judicial authorities, granted permission by the community at large to decide on personal, moral and social matters. For instance, in our culture, juries and judges decides individual cases and interpret laws, and the legislation should establish the substantive rules for legal insanity. The need that the compulsion or irrationality be nonculpable is another of the benchmark for lack of accountability.
ROLE OF PSYCHATRY
Treating mental health is therefore a psychiatrist’s job. In addition, they will be required to appear in court to establish certain cases and be asked to attest to the details of any crime committed by an insane person or someone having unsound mind. In the event that the accused enters a plea of insanity, the psychiatrist is required to attest, using his professional judgment and skills, that the accused was mad at the commission of the crime. taking a mental health assessment of the defendant and monitoring their actions and feelings during the court proceedings.
If the patient needs a thorough evaluation of the defendant, the psychiatrist might think about admitting them. It is the psychiatrist’s responsibility to assist the court and provide an unbiased, factual, and clear report during the trial without misleading the jury. The National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, or NIMHANS, provided services to patients and periodically assessed their conditions.
ROLE OF A FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: The word “forensic” comes from the Latin forum. Then, after a while, it progressively evolved from forum to forensic. In Latin, “forensic” refers to an open or public court. One subspecialty of psychiatry is forensic psychiatry. In essence, they will provide assistance with matters pertaining to the intersection of legal matters. Psychiatrists might be called to help the court decide if a person’s mental incapacity interfered with their capacity to form the intent required to be held legally responsible. The mental state of the patient is described by the medical field along a continuous sequence that stretches from gravely ill to fully well.
BURDEN OF PROOF
When we talk about the burden of proof in Indian law, The accused always bears the burden of proof when attempting to prove an insanity defense; they must prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they were mentally incapable when the offense was committed. The accused must provide proof, such as written and spoken papers, to show that he was not aware of the nature of the crime or that the act was unlawful. By giving evidence in court, including expert testimony, oral and written testimony, assumptions, admissions, and even prosecution testimony, the accused must demonstrate that he was not able to understand the nature of the act or that what he was doing was illegal or immoral. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the crime was committed at the relevant period in order to meet for the benefit of Section 84. The Supreme Court has determined that this is the critical moment at which insanity should be proven.
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INSANITY DEFENCE
The defence of insanity is recognized as a legitimate defence in criminal law in English law, which served as the foundation for the creation of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The foundation line of the insanity defence is McNaughten’s principles, which are derived from the English law ruling in R. v. McNaughten. English law had experimented with the defense of insanity prior to McNaughten’s case, using the Insane Delusion Test and the Wild Beast Test (discussed in Chapter II of this paper). However, McNaughten’s rules have been considered as the most significant and accurate when it comes to the application of the defense.
Similar to the conditions in India, McNaughten’s criteria served as the basis for American law to establish culpability in situations where the defense of insanity was asserted. Furthermore, the 1884-established Irresistible Impulse test was a feature of American law. In contrast to India, the excuse of insanity in America might cover an individual who does an act from culpability if they harmonize an irresistible drive with mental instability under specific conditions. In US, some states like Idaho and Montana have abolished insanity defence in their respective criminal code. Montana, like so many other states had some form of an insanity test to deal with criminal responsibility. The end result is essentially the same because, according to Idaho law, a defendant can still show that they lacked the essential mental component to commit the crime, and the prosecution can still refute the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Idaho simply does not specify how to get there.
In 1979 the Montana legislature abolished the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. State v. Cowan[8] is one of the most well-known cases that stood out in recent Montana history. In this case, the defendant killed a woman in her cabin following a psychotic break brought on by paranoid schizophrenia. Although a number of psychologists and psychiatrists concurred that Cowan had paranoid schizophrenia, the court found him guilty of aggravated burglary and purposeful killing and gave him a sixty-year jail sentence. A mentally sick perpetrator must prove mental impairment, which stops her from articulating the mens rea of the offense, in order to be forgiven under the mens rea approach. The famous example is the defendant who thought he was squeezing a lemon while actually strangling his victim due to his mental illness. It is the prosecution’s responsibility to establish intent in such a case. The prosecution would, however, be unsuccessful under the mens rea defense because proof of a mental illness or defect would demonstrate that the defendant genuinely thought he was squeezing a lemon rather than strangling a person. There is no intention to kill, therefore.
CONCLUSION
The first exception under this chapter is the factual error. The adage “ignoria facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat” is well known. It states that while ignorance of the law does not excuse behaviour, ignorance of the facts does. Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, states that an accused person may be protected from prosecution if the prosecution alleges that he committed a crime without his knowledge and that he behaved in good faith, thinking that he was obligated by law to carry out the crime. The second general exception addresses the exemptions for judges and courts. The accused always has the burden of proof when attempting to establish an insanity defence in Indian law; they must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were mentally ill at the time of the offence. A psychiatrist’s job is to treat mental wellness. They will also be requested to attest to the specifics of any crime committed by an insane person or someone of unsound mind, and they will be obliged to appear in court to resolve certain instances. In the case that the accused pleads a plea of insanity, the psychiatrist is expected to certify that the accused was insane when the crime was committed, based on his professional judgement. doing a mental health evaluation on the accused and keeping an eye on their behaviour and emotions throughout the court hearing.
[1] Subham Chatterjee, General Exception in Indian Penal Code (IPC), Law Corner (14 June, 2021) https://lawcorner.in/general-exceptions-in-indian-penal-code-ipc/.
[2] M.H George v State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C 722 (India).
[3] Subhashini Parihar, Accident as a General Exception – Section 80 IPC ,WritingLaw http://www.writinglaw.com/accident-as-exception-ipc/.
[4] Geron Ali v King AIR 1941 CAL 129 (India).
[5] Surendra Mishra v State of Jharkhand AIR 2011 SC 627 (India).
[6] Hari Singh Gond v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 31(India).
[7] Morse, Stephen J., Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Défense Reconsidered 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 777, 780-781 (1985).
[8] State v. Cowan, 260 Mont. 510, 512 (1993).
Cite this article as:
Devanshu Nautiyal & Dr. Ramakant Tripathi, “General Exception In Criminal Justice System: A Study With Special Reference To Insanity Defence”, Vol.5 & Issue 5, Law Audience Journal (e-ISSN: 2581-6705), Pages 530 to 544 (01st May 2024), available at https://www.lawaudience.com/general-exception-in-criminal-justice-system-a-study-with-special-reference-to-insanity-defence.
