ABSTRACT
Insanity defense is primarily mostly used in criminal prosecution. It is the assumption that when the crime was committed, the defendant was suffering from severe mental or illness so therefore he is not capable of appreciating the nature of the crime that he had done at that time. However in law responsibility means liability to punishment, fundamental to our view of man as free; a person can be held liable for any act he commits only if he does it with wish and free will. The maxims ‘actus non facet ream nisi men’s sit rea’ the physical act does not make a person guilty, the mental component in the form of evil intent is equally important this plea of unsoundness of mind or insanity save the person from capital punishment.
In the past 145 years, there is no change in the understanding and knowledge, and capacity to choose the right and wrong for criminal liability, human behavior is the result of an interaction between biological and environmental factor other than free choice failed to impress the criminal justice system because direct threat to a society deep seated need to blame someone than themselves for criminal harm that occur. The insanity or unsoundness of mind is the shield to defendant the criminal that were committed and astray the judiciary as well as people at large.
INTRODUCTION
Insanity is one of the unfavorable ranges of law of crime it is the war between the medical and legal profession, the insanity as a defense draw a deduction from the scant, evidence, insanity is apparently a question of fact not gauged by inflexible legal test. The recent tendencies indicate the development toward recognition of insanity not as question of law but as question of fact.[1] A mentally ill person is not punished for his crime as he is devoid of free will, it does not mean that the prosecution’s responsibilities were over the burden of proving must be reasonable doubt and then the only plea of unsoundness of mind is entertained.
The concept of the provision is that such a person was not incomplete control of mind at the time of offence so he should not be punished, moreover he need not be punished as punishment is already given to him by nature.[2] This provision would be dangerous for times as all criminal will plead defense of insanity in order to escape capital punishment on the other hand the society harmony of peacefulness attack by mental ill person.
DISCLAIMER
Terms such as ‘insanity’ and unsoundness of mind’ are legal concepts and are used for frequently in the court of law. Though the Metal health Act, 1987 (7) has clearly recommended the abolition of various offensive terminologies, unfortunately, these terminologies continue to exist in various legislation, rules, and regulation.[3]
HISTORY
It is all about started from England rule by Mc Naughton in 1843. Mr. Daniel Mc Naughton, while laboring under delusion of persecution killed Mr. Edmund Drummond, private secretary of births prime minister Mr. Robert Peel in mistake for later it was shown that Mc Naughton had transected a business shortly before act and had shown no signs of insanity. The defense put forth the plea of insanity and accused was acquitted. Due to adverse public reaction, the House of Lords decided to probe into subject. Accordingly, some question was put before a bench of 14 judges in house of lords. From the answers given some rules were framed towards determination of criminal responsibility of insane and were called Mc Naughton rules.[4]
The critic is that if fails to distinguish between defendant posing a public danger and those who don’t or between temporary mental issues and lifelong conditions. Finally, some have argued that this rule it too easy for a defendant with a severe mental disorder to escape responsibility for any crimes, regardless of how big role the disorder played in the incident. [5]
INDIAN LAW DEFENSE OF INSANITY
In IPC Section 84 says 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 doing wrong or contrary of law’.[6] Let examine section in detail by this section the proof of insanity is not enough, it should be proven that at the time of crime the person was insane at that time, Even if he knew the nature of the act he did not know that it was wrong or against the law. In ‘actus non facet ream miso menus sit rea’ an act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Not only the accused important but the intention of the accused to do the specific is equally important to prove the guilty of the accused. Further the men’s rea is important to understand the severity of the crime committed. However the statement without a guilty mind there is no crime is subjected to certain exception such a strict liability, under strict liability, it is not necessary to show that a decedent possessed the relevant men’s rea for the act committed.[7]
INTERPRETATION OF JUDICIARY IN INSANITY TERMS
Insanity from time immemorial has been set up as a defense in criminal action, and especially in cases of homicide. It has always been conceded that all men are presumed to be same until prove to be insane.[8] It been a rule of the Supreme Court that mentally ill people and psychopaths are unable to seek immunity from a criminal case, it is the responsibility to demonstrate insanity at the time the crime was committed. In the case of bench DK Jain, where the men cut off his wife head by cause of abnormality of mind, the court held that section 84 provides immunity from criminal prosecution as provided of unsound mind.
In the case of Hari Singh god v/s state of Madhya Pradesh, in which clause (5) said that section 84 lays down test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind there, is no definition of unsoundness of mind in the IPC, where the judgment is the person is totally liable to recurring fit of insanity.[9]
Kamala Bunia v/s West Bengal, the accused was tried for her husband murder with an axis. A suit was filed against she alleged to be insane at the time of the incident, the accused made no attempt to flee, nor made any attempt to remove the incriminating weapon failure on the part of the prosecution was to discharge his initial responsibility for the presence of men’s rea in the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. Hence they benefit from section 84 and proved insane at the time of the commission of the offense.[10]
INCAPACITY TO KNOW RIGHT AND WRONG
In order to deface the insanity under the latter part of section 84 namely or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. It is not necessary that the accused must be completely insane, his reason completely extinguished. What is required is to establish that although the accused know the physical effect of the act, he was unable to know that he was doing what was either “wrong” or “contrary to the law.” This part of Section 84 has made a new contribution to criminal law by introducing the concept of partial insanity as a defense against criminal insanity. However, as a practical matter, there would probably be very few cases in which insanity is pleaded in defense of a crime in which the distinction between “moral” and “legal” error would be necessary. In any crime, insanity can undoubtedly be pleaded as a defense, yet it is rarely pleaded except in murder cases. Therefore, in a case, this fine distinction may not be very useful for the decision. The Indian penal code has advisably used either “wrong or contrary to the law” in Section 84, perhaps anticipating the controversy.
FUTURE DIRECTION
There is no formal graduation course in forensic psychiatry in India. Forensic psychiatric training and center that provide forensic psychiatric clinical services are few in no. across the country, taking into consideration the current state of affair in forensic psychiatry, the researcher is to develop forensic psychiatry training center to train mental health, and person mental health series need to be started in each central prison, there by urgent need to train the psychiatrist in each distract hospitals and medical college in assessment of insanity defense and evolution of fitness to stand trial. The systematic reach in the area of criminal and diminished responsibility. [11]
CONCLUSION
It is suggested that there should full with interpretation definition of the term ‘mental insanity’ to avoid the various controversies that arise in understanding the ‘mental disease’. Section 84 of the Code should be amended to incorporate the partial defense of diminished responsibility for murdering insane persons. This change shall be made on an equal footing with the defense of diminished responsibility as accepted under the defense of insanity as specified by criminal law. The scope of Section 84 should be expanded to incorporate the defense of automatism under the defense of an unhealthy mind, just as it is recognized by the criminal law system. In the time of Corruption the false evidence is normal now a day for the criminal who will include as pressure group who funded the political parties and does such crime although at last take the plea of insanity to curtain the crime.
[1] www.ijemr.net, Dr. Raj Kumar Upadhyay.
[2] JIAFM, 2006
[3] NCBI, 2015
[4] The free dictionary, M’ Naughton Rule.
[5] Find law
[6] Indian Kanoon, Central Government Act.
[7] ITJ,2019
[8] JSOTR, Vol.6, No.3.
[9] Indian kanoon, Supreme court of India
[10] I Pledgers, 2019
[11]NLM PUBREADER,2015.
This article is authored by Gaurav Kumar Arya & Deepika Mittal, Student of BA.LL.B at Galgotias University, Greater Noida.
Also Read – Discuss Criminal Liability Under Infancy,Insanity And Intoxication.
