To Be Medically Or Legally Insane: Confusion Over The Meaning Of Section 84 Of The IPC

Subsequently, Drummond died five days later and McNaughten was tried for murder. However, he pleaded not guilty and took up the defense of 'Insanity'. Moreover, witnesses were also summoned and their testimonies corroborated with McNaughten, apart from the medical evidence presented which clearly pointed that McNaughten was clearly not in his right frame of mind and hence, was let gone from the Court guilt-free.

Later, a panel constituted of 15 Judges deliberated on the issue of Insanity, in the House of Lords, and finally a set of rules pertaining to Insanity were created, titled the name 'McNaughten's rule'. This rule is one of the most extensively applied rules in Common Law, even in India as well. The Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code deals with 'Insanity' and even in Indian Laws, the McNaughten rule is used to deal with such cases. Moreover, with great advances in the Legal Jurisprudence, has the meaning and application of the section remained relevant in today's time?

What The Section 84 Of The Indian Penal Code Actually Contains:

The Section 84 of the IPC states:

• "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."

The Section implies that for the defense of Insanity to be applicable, Insanity shall be seen through two perspectives.

One is the Medical Insanity and the other shall be the Legal Insanity. While the former refers to a significantly deranged mental state that typically results from a specific condition, the latter refers to the Unsoundness of Mind or the Lack of Understanding that precludes one from having the mental capacity necessary by law to engage in a certain relationship, position, or transaction (or that absolves one from legal or financial obligation.)

Moreover, the prosecution immunity under Insanity does not include mere or partial delusions, impulses and compulsive behaviour. Both these forms may seem as an important factor while deciding cases, however in the Courts of Law; it is the Legal Insanity which is to be ascertained, not its Medical counterpart.

The distinction between the terms "Legal Insanity" and "Medical Insanity" in the context of this Section was recently clarified by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench. The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice R.K. Shrivastava observed-

• Even Insanity is not exempted under Section 84 of IPC. Every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. There is a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. In order to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC, the accused must prove legal insanity, and not medical insanity. Any person, who is suffering from any kind of mental weakness is called "medical insanity," however "legal insanity" means, person suffering from mental illness should also have a loss of reasoning power. Furthermore, the legal insanity must be at the time of incident. In other words, it can be said that in order to attract legal insanity, a person should be incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or he is doing what is either wrong or either contrary to law. Thus, mere abnormality of mind or compulsive behavior is not sufficient to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

In this case (TUFAN @ TOFAN V. State Of Madhya Pradesh), the Appellant had used a lathi to physically abuse his parents and his wife, according to the case's circumstances. His mother had passed away as a result of this, along with his father severely injured. The appellant was found guilty of violating IPC Sections 302 and 307. Dissatisfied with the trial court's ruling, the Appellant chose to appeal his conviction to the High Court.

Instead, he claimed that he was insane at the time of the occurrence and that his therapy was ongoing parallel to the trial proceedings. On behalf of the Appellant, the State contended that there was no evidence to demonstrate that he was incapable of understanding the nature of his act or that he was acting in a way that was improper or illegal due to mental incapacity.

The Court concluded after reviewing the arguments made by the parties and the trial court file that the lower court never found anything unusual whenever the appellant appeared for the hearings. However, the turning point in the proceedings was the fact that the Appellant had run away after this incident, implying that he knew the gravity of his misdeed. Hence, his conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Here, the Legal Insanity was taken into consideration and not the alleged Medical Insanity which the Appellant claimed to be suffering from.

Loopholes And The Need To Reform:

However, the McNaughten approach was not invulnerable to criticism as several legal thinkers and jurists began to criticize the rationale behind the same. In India, the 42^nd Law Report also set on the same tide; however, it decided not to change the contents of Section. Hence, no such revamp occurred in the definition and the application of the Section.

When it comes to opining on the mental condition of an accused person whose psychological health is in issue, Indian courts have traditionally prized the professional judgement of a psychiatrist. The Hon'ble Madras High Court exonerated the accused in a case involving a criminal charged with murder under Section 302 and given a life sentence, mainly relying on the testimony of the psychiatric expert, and ordering that he be admitted to a mental health centre for treatment.

Also, a forensic psychiatrist expert is not frequently called upon to testify in a criminal trial in India, with the exception of the insanity defense provided for in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the expert is given the authority to sway the evidence in his role as an expert witness before the court under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the minute the accused invokes his defense under the Section 86 of IPC.

In India, there is essentially no regulatory framework controlling the practice of forensic psychiatric specialists, nor is there any training for them. However, there are some standards of behaviour that have developed over time that serve as a guide for such specialists, which have remained more or less static.

It is crucial to remember that this section might be gravely abused since it is quite challenging for the judge to determine whether the defendant was of sound mind or not at the time of the offence.

The judge will have to depend on the testimony of witnesses as well as the evidence that is presented in the form of prior and subsequent medical problems. Even if it may just be momentary, intoxication falls within the concept of being mentally unwell.

Further, in India, unlike the United States, there are no official specialties in the area of forensic psychology. The same lacks access to training and cannot be found. The Indian criminal justice system is grimly aware that every case and inquiry requiring a forensic psychiatrist's opinion has flaws or grey areas. Also, the Section has mentioned 'Insanity' but has not provided what exactly would fall into the ambit of the same. This creates confusion as to whether the Defense would be applicable or not, as mental illnesses too have their different stages.

In order to provide the accused with a defense, it is suggested that the term "mental insanity" should have a clear definition in order to avoid the various debates and misunderstandings that can arise when attempting to distinguish between the "mental disease" and the true mental insanity that the Code seeks, or the so-called "legal insanity."

The partial defense of reduced culpability for murdering mad people should be included to Section 84 of the Code. This adjustment will be made on an equal basis with the accepted defense of diminished culpability under the insanity defense as defined by English criminal law.

The environment for forensic psychiatrists is extremely opaque and unclear. A strong system cannot be built in the absence of solid legislation, excellent research, and reliable sources. It is time for sociologists and psychologists to combine their expertise to create a target precedent on the matter that will help reduce the doubt that comes with determining culpability of a suspect because of the extensive academic literature on the subject, numerous researchers emphasizing the need for revisiting the entire procedure, as well as the presence of heavy international material.

Views are personal.