L. M. S.

LAW COLLEGE, IMPHAL

DHANAMANJURI UNIVERSITY

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT PAPER 2021

OF
SUBJECT: LAW OF CRIMES

UNDER THE TOPIC:

“NATURE AND EXTEND OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND”

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Sarojbala A. Athuo Luke
Lecturer LL.M 3rd Sem.
L.M.S Law College, Imphal DMU Roll No. 1958001
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I hereby express my deepest gratitude towards the subject expert of “Law of

Crimes”, Dr. Sarojbala (Lecturer) who gave me the golden opportunity and the freedom

to explore on the wonderful assignment topic of “Nature and Extend of Unsoundness

of Mind”. It has helped me in gaining the necessary information regarding the processes
involved in writing research paper and it further improved my knowledge in the area of
the subject.
I am very thankful to the librarian who provided me several books on this topic
which proved beneficial in completing this project.
I would also like to express my special gratitude towards my classmates for
providing their valuable and meticulous insight and support that greatly assisted in the
completion of this assignment.

Dated: A. Athuo Luke

LL.M 3rd Sem.
DMU Roll No. 1958001

I
 MENS REA AND STATUTORY CRIMES

Abstract:
Crime is a natural phenomenon which keeps constantly changing with the
change of social norms. Criminal liabilities are necessary to control crimes and
maintain law and order. But there exists some exceptions to it. Unsoundness of
mind or mental abnormality is one of the general exceptions to criminal liability
recognized by the IPC.
This paper deals descriptively with the concept of ‘unsoundness of mind’ as
in Indian law, the liability of a person who is of unsound mind in criminal matters
and traces the origin of section 84 of IPC which is based upon the M’Naghten rule
under the English law.
Furthermore, this paper discusses the legal principles and essentials laid
down in s. 84 of the Penal Code and further establishes the extent to which a person
with unsound mind can obtain exemption depending upon the presence of sense of
mind at the time of committing crime and the weightage of legal insanity to that of
medical insanity. It further deduces significant kinds of insanity relying on past
Supreme Court cases.

Keywords : Crime, Unsoundness of mind, Criminal liability, Legal insanity, medical

insanity, Insanity,

II
 CONTENTS

List of Abbreviation …………………..…IV

List of cases …………………..…V

Chapter 1
Introduction …………………..…1

Chapter 2
The M’ Naghten Rule …………………..…3

Chapter 3
Indian Concept of Unsoundness of Mind …………………..…5

Chapter 4
Every form of Insanity not exempted …………………..…7

Chapter 5
Conclusion …………………..…12

Bibliography …………………..…13

III
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Records

All. Allahabad

Co. Company

Cr. L. J. Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition

Eng England

IPC The Indian Penal Code

Mad. Madras

Mah LJ Maharashtra Law Journal

p. Page

pp. Pages

Prof. Professor

s. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court cases

SCR Supreme Court Review

ss. Sections

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

IV
 LIST OF CASES

 Bhikari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1.

 R v Daniel M’ Naghten (1843) 8 Eng Rep 718.
 Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 778.
 Re : Manickam AIR 1950 Mad 576 [LNIND 1950 MAD 59], (1963) Mah LJ
(Notes) 24(DB).
 Re: Pappathi Ammal AIR 1959 Mad 239, 1959 CriLJ 724.
 Sheralli Wali Mohammed v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 2443 (1972) Cr LJ
1523(SC)

 Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs The State Of Maharashtra, 1972 Cr LJ 1523 :AIR

1972 SC 2443 .
 State of Orissa v. Kalia Alias Debabrata Maharana, 2008 Cr LJ 271.

V
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

The criminal law has been of a dynamic nature since its inception in India.
The Law in its primitive stage was only concerned with external behaviour without
any reference to the mental state of the law-breaker. Thereafter, a well-established
principle of criminal law - Mens Rea (guilty mind) and Actus Reus (wrong or
unlawful Action) came to be established in order to prove guilty for an offence. The
legal maxim ‘Actus Non-Facet Reum Nisi Mens sit Rea’ means that ‘the act and the
intent must both conquer together in order to constitute a crime.’
‘Unsoundness of mind’, commonly termed as ‘insanity’ means a state of
mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is
incapable of knowing that he is doing wrong or contrary to law.
The basis, therefore, is that such a person is not of sound mind, but is non
compos mentis (not of sound mind). That is to say, he does not know the nature of
the act he is doing, as what is either wrong or contrary to law. Unsoundness of mind
covers a wide range and is synonymous with insanity, lunacy, madness, mental
derangement, mental disorder and mental aberration or alienation. 1
By virtue of the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, an act forbidden
by penal code is not punishable if it is unaccompanied by a guilty mind. Therefore
a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness
of mind if he at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing,

1. The nature of the act, or

2. That he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to the law.2

1
https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/436411821?extension=pdf&ft=1618402122&lt=161
8405732&user_id=411442845&uahk=pV9Ia4p8B84zEI1iVQ179F-uQ2k, visited on 09/04/2021 at 18:12.
2
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal : The Indian Penal Code (33rd Edition Reprint), Nagpur, Edited by Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud & V.R. Manohar, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Publication, 2012, p. 110.

1
 The justification for providing unsoundness of mind as a complete defence
is that an insane person is incapable of forming criminal intent. Further, a mad man
has no will (furiosis nulla voluntas est) and he is like one who is absent (furiosus
absentis low est). In fact, a mad man is punished by his own madness (furiosus furore
sui puniter).
In other words, every operative act performed by a person cannot exempt
him from criminal responsibility. It is only insanity of a particular or appropriate
kind which is regarded as insanity in law that will exempt a man from criminal
liability.3

There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis:
i) an idiot;
ii) one made non compos by illness;
iii) a lunatic or a madman; and
iv) one who is drunk.4
Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity,
and idiocy as natural insanity.5
Every man is presumed to be sane and to possess sufficient degree of reason
to be responsible for his crime until the contrary is proved. Under Section 105 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the proof of burden lies upon the accused.
The foundation for the law of insanity was laid down by the House of Lords
in 1843, in what is popularly known as the M’Naghten case6, in which the verdict
was made a subject of debate in the House of Lords, a set of five questions which
came to be known as M’Naghten Rules. It is more descriptively discussed in the
following chapter.

3
K. D. Gaur, Indian Penal Code (5th Ed.), Edited by Justice V.R. Khare, New Delhi, Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2014, pp. 133 & 134.
4
As to a person who are drunk in s. 85 of IPC.
5
Supra Note 2, P. 111.
6
R v Daniel M’Naghten, 1843 10 CL & F. 200.

2
 Chapter 2
THE M’ NAGHTEN’S RULE

The provision of ‘unsoundness of mind’ under Indian law has it origin from
the M’ Naghten Rule which became significant under the English Law as

established in a decision of the House of Lords in the case of R v Daniel M’ Naghten7

by the judiciary of England. Hence, the M’ Naghten rules is also one of the few
important test to determine insanity.

M’ Naghten’s case:

Brief Facts: In 1843, M’ Naghten killed Mr. Drummond, the Private Secretary
of Sir Robert Peel, and the then Prime Minister of England. M’ Naghten was
under the insane delusion that Sir Peel had injured him and was going to injure
him again. So one day, mistaking Drummond for Sir Peel, he shot and killed
him. He was tried for murder before Chief Justice Tindol.

Defence Counsel pleaded that due to insanity the accused was not able to
know that he was violating laws. Medical report produced in support of proof
showed that the accused was labouring under a morbid delusion which
carried him away beyond the power of self-control.

Judgment: M‘ Naghten was acquitted on the ground of insanity. This case

created a sensation in England and debates were conducted, including in the
House of Lords. Fifteen Law Lords formulated some principles which later
become famous as “M’ Naghten Principles of Insanity”. The following
proposition may be drawn from the answers given by the judges:-

7
Ibid.

3
1. Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to
be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of jury.

2. To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that,

at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of
reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he
was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

3. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if
that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.

4. A medical witness who has not seen the accused previous to the trial should not
be asked his opinion whether on evidence he thinks that the accused was insane.

5. Where the criminal act is committed by a man under some insane delusion as to
surrounding facts, which conceals from him the true nature of the act he is doing,
he will be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the
facts as he imagined them to be. 8

It was observed that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess

sufficient degree of reason to be held responsible for his crime until the contrary is
proved. In order to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly
proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such
a degree of reason from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of
the act he was doing, or if he did know it, as not to know what he was doing was
wrong.9

8
Prof. S. N. Misra, Indian Penal Code (14th Edn.), Allahabad, Central Law Publications, 2006, P. 180
9
Kenny’s outlines of Criminal Law, Edited by J.W. Cecil Turner, 19th Edition. Universal Publication, 2006, pp
82-83.

4
 Chapter 3

INDIAN CONCEPT OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND

Section 84 of the IPC, more or less, embodies the principles laid down in the
M’Naghten Rules. However, the word ‘insanity’ is not used in s. 84 of the Penal
Code. It uses the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’, which is not defined in the
Code. Under the Indian Penal Code, insanity has been accepted as a defence to a
charge of crime. However, there appears no difference in the etymological means of
the two terms- ‘insanity’ and ‘unsoundness of mind’- as they mean a ‘defect of
reason arising from a disease of the mind’. The courts in India have treated the
expression ‘unsoundness of mind’ as equivalent to ‘insanity’.10
By analysing Section 84 we understand the essential elements of a person
with an unsound mind. The Section 84 reads as follows-

“S. 84. Act of a person with 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.”

In order to take the defence under this section it is not merely enough to
simply take the plea of insanity, rather, based on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the thing which is to be proved in front of the court of law is that the person
who committed the offence was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of
the commission of the offence and was relatively not in a position to judge the
nature and consequences of the act at that particular juncture of time.

10
PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (12th Ed.), Edited by K.I. Vibhute, Nagpur, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
publication, 2014, p. 98

5
 A major point to be noted here is that the drafters of the Indian Penal Code
1860 chose the expression ‘Unsoundness of Mind’ in Place of the expression
‘insanity’ with an objective to widen the horizons of the provision as the term
unsoundness of mind includes a lot wider perspective.

In cases where the defence of insanity is set up under s. 84 of I.P.C, it is

material to consider the circumstances which have preceded, attended and followed
the crime; whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act, whether it
was done in a manner which showed a desire to concealment of consciousness of
guilt and whether the accused made any efforts to avoid detection and whether after
arrest he offered false excuses or made false statements etc.11

The legal maxim “Non compos mentis” meaning ‘not of sound mind’ groups
insanity into two broad heads, namely:
(a) Dementia naturalis, i.e. individuals who are insane since birth (E.g. A
person with any psychological or mental problem), and
(b) Dementia adventitia or accidentialis, i.e., an individual who becomes
insane after his birth.12 (E.g. A drunken person)
Essentials of section 84 of IPC:

1. The act should be done by an individual of unsound mind

2. Such individual should be impotent of judging and knowing:
• The exact nature of the act done by him, or
• The act committed by him is inconsistent with the law of the land, or
• The act done by him was wrong
3. The impotency thus caused to the individual should be due to the exclusive
reason of unsoundness of Mind.
4. The impotency mentioned above in Paras2 must exist at the time of doing the
act constituting an offence.

11
Prof. N. V. Paranjape : Criminology & Penology with Victimology (15th Edn. Reprinted), Allahabad, Central
Law Publication, 2012 p. 56.
12
Supra note 10. p. 97

6
 Chapter 4
EVERY FORMS OF INSANITY NOT EXEMPTED

A perusal of this Section would show that it is not every person, who is

mentally diseased, ipso facto, is exempted from criminal responsibility. Any person
who seeks the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. must prove that at the time of committing
the act he was labouring under such defect of reason as not to know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing. So there are certain extent to which unsoundness of
mind is exempted depending upon the presence of sense of mind at the time of
committing crime and the weightage of legal insanity to that of medical insanity.

Unsoundness of Mind at the Time of Committing the Offence:

One of the main points to be highlighted under this section is that the law is
concerned only with insanity that existed at the time of committing the offence. The
crucial point of time, for deciding whether the benefit of this section could be given
or not, is material time when the offence takes place. Mere absence of motive for
crime, howsoever, atrocious it may be cannot, in the absence of plea and proof of
legal insanity, bring the case within this section.13

Legal Insanity vis-à-vis Medical Insanity:

A court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the legal test of responsibility as
distinguished from the medical test. Medical insanity is solely dependent on
medical grounds while legal insanity depends on the factors required to be proved
in a court of law to enable the accused to be acquitted of the charge.

13
Supra Note 10, p. 99.

7
 It may be observed that the absence of will arises not only from the absence
of maturity of understanding but also from a morbid condition of mind. This
morbid condition of the mind, which affords an exemption from criminal
responsibility, differs in the medical and legal point of view.

Some other significant forms of unsoundness of mind are:-

Hallucination or Delusion
Hallucination or delusion is a state of mind where a person may be perfectly
sane in respect of everything, but may be under a delusion in respect of one
particular idea. The Madras and the Bombay High Courts have held that a person
who is not insane but is merely suffering from some kind of obsession or
hallucination, cannot invoke s 84 in his favor.14

Somnambulism
Somnambulism is the unconscious state known as walking in sleep and if
proved, will constitute unsoundness of mind and the accused will get the benefit
under s 84, IPC.15

Irresistible Impulse, Mental Agitation, Annoyance and Fury

Irresistible impulse, mental agitation, annoyance and fury all merely indicate
loss of control and not indicative of unsoundness of mind. Irresistible impulse or
impulsive insanity has never been accepted as defence under s 84 unless it is
attributable to unsoundness of mind. Similarly, it is held that a crime attended with
a mere agitation of mind or an uncommon ferocity or a moderate depression or an
over-sensitiveness of mind or character does not necessarily lead to an inference
that it had affected mental capacity of a person.16

14
Re : Manickam AIR 1950 Mad 576 retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442737/ visited on
04/04/21 at 17:54.
15
Re: Pappathi Ammal AIR 1959 Mad 239, 1959 CriLJ 724,retrieved from
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1516345/, visited on 05/04/21 at 18:54.
16
Supra Note 10, p. 97.

8
Insanity as a Result of Smoking Ganja or Heavy Intoxication
Drunkenness or intoxication is no excuse but delirium tremens caused by
drinking of alcohol or smoking ganja, if it produces such a degree of madness, even
for a time, as to render a person incapable of distinguishing right from wrong,
afforded a ground of excuse from criminal responsibility. 17 The accused can take
shelter under this section, if he can prove that the insanity existed at the time of
commission of the act. However, a mere loss of self-control due to excessive
drinking or smoking ganja or abuse of cannabis & alcohol does not entitle him the
cloak of immunity provided under s 84.

Lack of Motive or a Trifling Matter

The absence of a strong and adequate motive to commit a serious offence like
murder is not by itself a proof of insanity. But the absence of motive may be taken
into consideration along with other circumstances of the case to determine the
question of sanity or otherwise of the accused. The fact that the accused caused the
death of a person over a trifling matter will not by itself warrant a conclusion that
he was insane, when no plea of insanity was taken before the trial court, nor was
any material produced to establish the ground of insanity. A crime committed for a
paltry reason is no defence.18

Excessive or Unusual Violence

The brutality and ferociousness of the act by itself cannot lead to the
conclusion of insanity. A brutal and callous way of committing a crime cannot by
itself be an indicator of unsoundness of mind. A crime cannot be excused by its own
atrocity. In order to determine whether the conduct of the accused was an insane
act, one must look beyond the act itself for evidence as to how much the accused
acted with knowledge.

17
Supra Note 8, p. 184
18
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/lunacy-or-unsound-mind-mental-
abnormality.php, visited on 04/04/21 at 18:12.

9
PRESUMPTION OF SANITY
The plea of insanity is a defence against criminal responsibility. It must,
therefore be established by the defence. The courts will presume that every person
is sane and in full control of all his facilities, until the contrary is proved.

In other words , in order to gain the protection of section 84 IPC, 1860, it must
be shown that, at the time of the commission of the act, the accused was unable to
either recognize the meaning of the act or whether the act was either morally
incorrect or contrary to the law, and it is most important to assess his state of mind
before and after the execution of the offence. Admitting the defence of insanity on
claims deriving solely from the character of the crime would be dangerous.19

BURDEN OF PROOF
When the plea of insanity is raised by the accused, it is not the duty of the
prosecution to establish affirmatively that the accused was capable of knowing the
nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary
to law. Every person is presumed to know the law and the natural consequences of
his act. The prosecution, in discharging its burden in the face of a plea of insanity,
has merely to prove the basic fact and to rely upon the normal presumptions
aforesaid. It is then the accused who is called upon to rebut these presumptions and
the inference in such manner as would go to establish his plea. The burden of
proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of s 84,
therefore, lies upon the accused. However, as in cases of proof of all General
Exceptions, the accused need not prove the existence of insanity beyond reasonable
doubt. All that he has to establish is the probability of the existence of insanity at
the time of commission of the offence. It is enough for him to show, as in the civil
case, that the preponderance of probabilities is in his favor.20

19
Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs The State Of Maharashtra, 1972 Cr LJ 1523 : AIR 1972 SC 2443, 13 stanza.
20
Supra Note 10, p. 101

10
INDIAN CASE LAWS :
Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh21: The accused was in the habit of setting
fire to his own clothes and house. It was held that this could hardly be called rational
and was more likely verging on insanity. The Supreme Court accepted the plea of
insanity raised by the accused and absolved him of criminal liability.
Bhikari v. State of Uttar Pradesh22: The accused was working in the field. A few
months before the occurrence, he had threatened to kill all the family members of
the deceased. Further, on the date of the event, though there were other people
around, he carefully chose only the children of the deceased’s family. All this
indicated that his actions were deliberate, pre-meditated and not acts of an insane
man.
State of Orissa v. Kalia Alias Debabrata Maharana23 : The accused murdered three
people and wounded others, although no prior enmity or motive had been
identified. The witnesses said he fled from one location to another, and on his way,
he indiscriminately attacked five people without any excuse or rhyme. The proof
suggests that the appellant had long developed insanity and had the right to the
protection of this section.
Sheralli Wali Mohammed v State of Maharashtra24, the accused, having killed his
wife and daughter with a chopper, locked himself inside the house and shouted,
‘save my wife, save my child, call the police’. When the door was opened with an
axe from outside, he was found standing near the door with a chopper in hand,
while his wife and daughter were lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. A plea
of insanity was rejected on the ground that neither the absence of motive for killing
his wife and child or nor attempt on his part to run away when the door was opened
indicates that he was either insane or lacked the requisite mens rea.

21
AIR 1971 SC 778.
22
AIR 1966 SC 1.
23
2008 Cr LJ 271.
24
AIR 1972 SC 2443 (1972) Cr LJ 1523(SC)

11
 Chapter 5
CONCLUSION

Criminal law only punishes a man for his faults and not for his misfortunes.
Therefore, if a state of mind exists where a man does not know what he was doing
or that it is wrong, the person in such case is protected by s. 38 of the Penal Code,
provided that the burden of proof lies on him. It can be clearly drawn from our
project that the M’ Naghten Rule forms the base of the law related to the criminal
liability of a person of unsound mind in India. So far as the plea of insanity under
Section 84 IPC is concerned, the legal position relating to the same is now well
established. It is not that a mere plea of insanity will keep the accused beyond the
pale of punishment. Even establishment of fact of medical insanity would not aid
the accused to earn an acquittal unless legal insanity is also proved which means
that it is to be shown that he was not in possession of his cognitive faculties at the
time of commission of the crime. It is only when the case is that the accused was at
the relevant time not in conscious control of mental faculties which had deprived
him of his power of judgment between the right and the wrong, to discriminate
between the legal and illegal by reason of insanity, that he could properly avail of
the exception. In establishing such plea, history of previous insanity including any
medical history of the same, the behavior of the accused on the day of the occurrence
and his post- occurrence behavior are, besides other factors, also relevant to be taken
into consideration as aids to judge the mental state of the accused at the time of
commission of the crime

However, it is a well acknowledged fact that as we live in an ever-changing

society there is always a room for improvement in the existing laws. we can
conclude that the law of unsoundness of mind or in Section 84 of Indian Penal
code needs or requires to be re visited in order to fix the loop holes in the law as
per the changing time and needs of the society in order to prevent its misuse.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books referred:

 Gaur K. D., Indian Penal Code (5th Ed.), Edited by Justice Khare V.R., New Delhi,
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2014.
 Kenny, outlines of Criminal Law (19th Ed.), Edited by Cecil Turner J.W., Universal
Publication, 2006.
 Pillai PSA, Criminal Law (12th Ed.), Edited by Vibhute K.I., Nagpur, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa publication, 2014.
 Prof. Misra S. N., Indian Penal Code (14th Edn.), Allahabad, Central Law Publications,
2006.
 Prof. Paranjape N. V.: Criminology & Penology with Victimology (15th Edn. Reprinted),
Allahabad, Central Law Publication, 2012.
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal : The Indian Penal Code (33rd Edition Reprint), Nagpur, Edited
by Justice Chandrachud Y.V. & Manohar V.R., Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Publication, 2012.

Websites visited:

 https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/436411821?extension=pdf&ft=161
8402122&lt=1618405732&user_id=411442845&uahk=pV9Ia4p8B84zEI1iVQ179F-
uQ2k, visited on 09/04/2021 at 18:12.
 https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/lunacy-or-unsound-mind-mental-
abnormality.php, visited on 04/04/21 at 18:12.

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442737/ visited on 04/04/21 at 17:54.

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1516345/, visited on 05/04/21

13