DEFENCE OF INSANITY – INTERSECTION OF CRIMINAL LAW AND PSYCHIATRY

AUTHOR: TEJASVIYA.R, TAMILNADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY (TNDALU).

This paper explores the intersection of criminal law and psychology dealing with mentally ill offenders. It delves deep into questions of Legal insanity, its effect on sentencing in case of heinous crimes and the legal protection given to mentally ill offenders.

It examines the various legal tests for identifying if an individual is criminally liable and is protected by the defence of insanity like the M’Naghten Rule, the Durham test, the Irresistible impulse test and the ALI test. But it is crucial to note that the defence of insanity must be used with caution to ensure justice is upheld by the courts of law.  

It further goes on to investigate the extent of influence mental illness has on sentencing offenders of the law. It can completely acquit an individual or commute their sentence according to their mental health condition at the time of the criminal act.

Finally, it critically appraises the current legal framework for the amount of protection it offers mentally ill offenders and provides suggestions to improve the Criminal Justice Delivery System for mentally ill offenders.

Criminal Law, Criminological Psychology, Forensic Psychiatry, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Mens Rea, Psychopathology, Insanity defence, Heinous Crime, Criminal liability.

With the increasing awareness of mental health concerns and the ever-evolving landscape of Criminal law and Forensic Psychiatry, there arises certain questions with respect to the mental health condition of the offenders:

1. What is an ideal method for ascertaining mental illness? What amounts to legal insanity?

2. Is insanity a valid defence in the case of heinous crimes like murder, rape, etc? 

3. What is the extent of influence that mental health conditions have in sentencing convicts? 

4. Do the current provisions to protect mentally ill offenders suffice? Should further legal protection be given to mentally ill offenders?     

This article explores these pressing questions and helps in identifying the right balance between penology and mental health.  

The field of Forensic Psychiatry has seen immense growth in the last few years and there is extensive socio-legal research to solve major issues that arise due to increasing development. One such article titled “Insanity defence – Past, Present, and Future” by Dr. Suresh Bada and two others, where Insanity is stressed to be a legal concept rather than a medical concept and the difficulty in establishing legal insanity in court. 

In another scholarly work, titled “The Legal Insanity defense: Transforming the legal theory into a medical standard”, Beatrice Maidman expressed her view that despite the Defence of Insanity being legal it cannot be justified under the traditional theories of punishment. This raises questions of its validity. She additionally proposed a “Two-pronged approach” to ascertain legal insanity where the criminal act is a result of psychosis at the time of the act.  

Furthermore in “Defence of Insanity in India and England - Comparative Legal Paradigm”, a research paper in International Journal of law and legal jurisprudence studies the authors had stated that the human mind is not a water tight compartment but rather a volatile, emotional mass therefore this must be taken into consideration while applying the M’Naghten rule in the modern context.

This study is a product of Non-Empirical Socio-legal research in the field of Criminal Law. It involves the conduction of research by means of analysis of Secondary Data sources. The data used in this study was collected from statutes, law commission reports, legal textbooks, peer-reviewed journals, academic articles, and other credible sources. This research paper employs Secondary Data Analysis to analyse and solve critical questions in the field of forensic psychiatry.

Legal insanity is different from medical insanity in the terms that at the time of the crime the defendant would be incapable of understanding the nature of his / her act and its wrongfulness. This is explained in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court held that every individual suffering from mental illness is not exempt from criminal liability. 

Legal Insanity is to be proved with psychiatric evaluations. The Onus i.e., the burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove lack of criminal liability. 

The first test for Legal insanity is the M’Naghten Rule laid down by the M’Naghten Case of 1843. This rule pronounced by the House of Lords in the murder of Edward Drummond declared that legal insanity is when an individual suffers from a disease of mind due to which they are unable to reason the nature and morality of an act, therefore committing a crime. 

However, the M’Naghten rule is often criticised for failing to take into account the increasing advancements in the field of psychiatry and psychology, which has led to the discovery of new mental health conditions that has left psychiatrists and legal professionals puzzled.

The next test is the Durham test laid down in Durham v. United States (1954) which is often called the product test and states that an individual is not criminally liable for an act when it is a product of mental disease or defect. This is an extension to the M’Naghten Rule.

Another test that is often used is the Irresistible Impulse Test which states that the defendant might be aware of the wrongfulness of the act but still be unable to control their behaviour or impulse.

Finally, the most recent test for legal insanity is the Substantial capacity test proposed by the American Law Institute (ALI) which combines elements of both the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test. Under this test a person is not criminally liable if the act is a result of mental disease and he / she “lacks capacity to appreciate criminality and conform to requirements of law”.   

In Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the behaviour of the accused prior, during and after a criminal act is crucial to ascertain the Mens Rea.

“Defence of Insanity” can act both as a general defence and special defence as in case of heinous crimes like murder. Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahitha (BNS) states that an individual of unsound mind is not criminally liable for an act of crime committed under such a state of mind. This takes root from the M’Naghten Rule laid down by the M’Naghten Case of 1843. However, due to the gravity of the crime and the subjective nature of mental illness, there is a dilemma in acquitting an individual of all charges as it could potentially be used to escape from the hands of law.

Like in the case of Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration, Jai Lal murdered a girl and pleaded defence of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but was rejected as the appellant had normal behaviour before and after the act. 

A landmark judgement in which Defence of Insanity was held by the Supreme Court was in the Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002), Bhosale was convicted for the death of his wife by the High Court but was acquitted later by the Supreme Court on the defence of insanity, as he suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia.

Additionally, the Insanity defence is provided in the international legal system through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as under right to fair trial.

Criminal Laws, the Indian criminal law in specific considers two main factors, Actus Reus i.e., the physical act along with Mens Rea i.e., the mental state of the person while committing a criminal act. In Sweet v. Parsley, the court declared “An act does not make a person guilty of a crime unless his mind is so guilty”. This is a defining factor that differentiates between culpable homicide and murder, wherein culpable homicide demands a shorter sentence due to reduced criminal liability. 

Similarly, considering the mental illness of an offender at the time of a crime the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) under Section 22 entirely absolves an offender of criminal liability by declaring them “Not guilty by reason of insanity”. The Indian Criminal justice system being a combination of retributive, reformative and expiatory justice identifies the right balance between punishment for heinous crimes and rehabilitation for mental ill offenders. Like in the case of Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan (2001) the appellant who was convicted for the death of the five individuals, was awarded a commutation from death sentence to life imprisonment due to deteriorating mental health. 

In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, it was held that legal insanity / mental illness / schizophrenia are important factors to be considered while sentencing offenders.

The very first protection given for mentally ill offenders is the Defence of Insanity under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as discussed earlier. Secondly, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) under Section 367 and 368 provides a procedure for mental examination for accused and persons tried before court. Finally, the Mental Health Care Act of 2017 provides a legal framework for mental healthcare and provides certain rights to persons with mental illness including right to access healthcare, right to protection from cruelty, and many more. 

Despite advancements in science, society and psychiatry there is not enough legal protection for mentally-ill offenders in India. This brings about the need for a holistic framework to address the issue of Mental illness in offenders. 

The following some suggestions for development in the field of Forensic Psychiatry:

1. A comprehensive legal framework that covers all aspects of Criminal law and mental health concerns including the procedure for evaluations, defence of insanity, level of mental health and subsequent punishment or rehabilitation measure.

2. Set up state run institutions for mentally ill offenders with healthcare and rehabilitation facilities.

3. Establishment of Mental Health courts that deal specifically in cases involving mentally ill parties.

4. Mental health care in prisons for mentally ill offenders and prisoners who are experiencing mental stress.

5. Provision of training for Forensic Psychiatrists to increase their skill set and specialization. 

The intricate connection between human psychology and criminology has led to a series of questions that were left unanswered, this research paper delved deep into these issues and provided suggestions for the same. It began with the question of what amounts to legal insanity and what is the ideal method to ascertain it. This can be determined by several legal tests including the M’Naghten rule, the Durham test, the Irresistible Impulse test, ALI’s Substantial Capacity Test but which is the most ideal test? These tests have both merits and limitations, but the deciding factor is the circumstance and therefore care must be taken in using the test or a combination of tests correctly.

Secondly, the issue of whether insanity can act as defence in case of heinous crimes like rape and murder were examined. As under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) it can act as defence but the burden of proof to establish insanity lies on the defendant as in civil cases by the “principle of preponderance of evidence”.

Thirdly, it dealt with the influence of mental health conditions in sentencing offenders, it is crucial to note that the mental state of the convict plays a huge role in sentencing them. It is the responsibility of judges to use it cautiously and with balance between rehabilitation for the offender and deterrent effect for the society.

Finally, the paper critically appraised the protection given to mentally ill offenders and found the current legal provisions to be inadequate and minimum.

In conclusion, the research paper suggests for a more comprehensive legal framework to be established and for state-run institutions and mental health courts for mentally ill offenders. 

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) § 22 (India).

2. Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 84 (India).

4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

5. Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration, (1971) 3 SCC 409 (India).

6. R v. M'Naghten, (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200 (House of Lords).

7. Mental Health Care Act, 2017, No. 10, Acts of Parliament (India).

8. Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 4 SCC 14 (India).

9. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 (India).

10. Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 3 SCC 78 (India).

11. Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 425 (India).

12. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 5 SCC 207 (India).

13. Sweet v. Parsley, 1 A.C. 227 (House of Lords 1954).

14. The Defence of Insanity in India and England: A Comparative Legal Paradigm, Indian Journal of Law and Legal Sciences, https://ijlljs.in/article/defence-of-insanity-in-india-and-england-comparative-legal-paradigm.

15. The Defence of Insanity in the Legal System, Boston University Law Review, https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2016/10/MAIDMAN.pdf.

16. The Role of Mental Health in Legal Defenses, PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4676201/.

17. The Role of Insanity Defense in Indian Law, Indian Journal of Forensic and Community Medicine, https://www.ijfcm.org/html-article/22281#:~:text=Section%2022%20of%20the%20 Bharatiya,mental%20state%20(Table%201).

18. Katherine S. Williams, Criminology (Oxford Univ. Press, India ed. 2020).

19. Professor Dr. Priya Sefna, Psychopath Behaviour: A Need for Therapeutic Approach (Thomson Reuters 2018).