Why in the News?
The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a double murder convict citing legal insanity under Section 84 of the IPC (Section 22 BNS), stressing the need to distinguish it from medical insanity and improve mental health investigations.
About Legal Insanity:
- Definition: Legal insanity refers to a mental condition where the accused cannot understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offence.
- Legal Basis: Codified under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860); based on the Mc’Naughten Rule (1843) from English law.
- Presumption of Sanity: Law presumes every person is sane unless proven otherwise; burden of proof lies on the accused (Section 105, Indian Evidence Act).
- Timing Requirement: Insanity must be present at the time of the offence—not before or after.
- Legal vs. Medical Insanity: Legal insanity (court-recognised) is different from medical insanity (clinical diagnosis); only the former is valid for defence.
- Terminology: Section 22 BNS uses the phrase “unsoundness of mind” instead of “insanity”.
- Exclusions: Mental illness, abnormal behaviour, or psychiatric history alone do not qualify.
- Test Applied: Based on cognitive incapacity—whether the person knew the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness (legal or moral) of the act.
- Underlying Principle: Based on “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – no crime without a guilty mind.
Important Judicial Precedents:
- Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration (1969): Insanity defence rejected—accused made rational statements and showed no mental disorder post-crime.
- Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Accused had paranoid schizophrenia and was found incapable of understanding the act—acquitted under Section 84.
- Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011): Court held that not all mentally ill persons qualify; only proven legal insanity is valid.
- Kamala Bhuniya v. State of West Bengal (2015): Acquittal granted—prosecution failed to prove sanity; accused’s conduct supported unsoundness of mind.
| [UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such a prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right. 2.State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
