GG News Bureau
New Delhi 19th July -In Indian criminal jurisprudence, a fundamental question that often arises is: Can a person suffering from mental illness be held criminally liable? The answer to this lies in a delicate interplay between medical evidence, legal definitions, and judicial interpretation. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a general exception to criminal liability for acts committed by persons of unsound mind, provided specific conditions are met. However, the courts have consistently maintained a nuanced position—mere mental illness is not sufficient to absolve criminal responsibility.
Section 84 IPC: The Legal Framework
Section 84 of the IPC reads:
“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.”
This provision lays down the legal test of insanity. It does not provide relief merely on the basis of medical insanity but requires proof of legal insanity, meaning that the accused was incapable of understanding the nature or wrongness of the act at the time of its commission.
Burden of Proof: Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act
Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances falling under any general exception—including Section 84 IPC—is on the accused. However, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, which is the threshold for the prosecution.
The presumption in law is that every individual is sane unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the accused must present credible evidence—such as medical records, witness testimonies, and behavioural patterns—to suggest that he/she was incapable of understanding the nature of the act due to unsoundness of mind.
The Distinction: Medical vs Legal Insanity
In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified that the court is concerned not with medical insanity but with legal insanity. Insanity as a medical condition can vary in degrees and symptoms; however, criminal law focuses on whether the accused could differentiate between right and wrong at the material time.
Relevant Conduct and Circumstantial Analysis
Courts have emphasized the importance of examining the entire conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime. For instance:
Did the accused try to flee the crime scene?
Did he attempt to hide the weapon or avoid detection?
Was the act premeditated or random?
Such behavioural cues help determine whether the accused had mens rea (guilty mind), which is central to establishing criminal responsibility.
In the landmark case of T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002), the Supreme Court reiterated that actions such as concealment of evidence or avoiding arrest suggest that the accused was aware of the consequences of their actions—thus negating the defense under Section 84 IPC.
The Case of Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011)
One of the most illustrative cases on this subject is Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, decided by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case:
The accused, Surendra Mishra, was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for fatally shooting one Chandrashekhar Choubey at point-blank range in 2000.
His defense claimed that he was of unsound mind and sought protection under Section 84 IPC.
Evidence and Defence:
Mishra’s lawyers presented old medical prescriptions suggesting he suffered from psychiatric symptoms, such as paranoid delusions.
However, none of these prescriptions clearly established a proximate connection between his mental condition and the date of offence.
Furthermore, his behaviour post-incident—threatening the driver, fleeing the scene, and hiding the weapon in a well—suggested an understanding of guilt and consequence.
Supreme Court’s Observation:
The Court held that mental instability in the past or after the incident was not enough. The accused must prove that at the exact time of the crime, he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act or its wrongness. Running a medical shop, travelling with a pistol, and fleeing the scene all pointed to consciousness of wrongdoing.
Hence, the plea under Section 84 IPC was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.
Other Notable Precedents
In State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (1983), the Supreme Court accepted the insanity defense based on clear and corroborated medical testimony. The accused had a documented history of schizophrenia, exhibited delusional behaviour, and lacked comprehension of his acts.
Similarly, in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the Court acknowledged the accused’s paranoid schizophrenia and held that he was under a delusion at the time of the act, thus granting him protection under Section 84 IPC.
Judicial Summary and Guiding Principles
The courts, through various judgments, have laid down the following guiding principles:
Presumption of Sanity: Every individual is presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise.
Legal vs Medical Insanity: Mere diagnosis of a mental disorder is insufficient; it must be proven that the accused was incapable of knowing the act was wrong or illegal.
Burden of Proof: Lies on the accused, though not to the extent of beyond reasonable doubt.
Behavioural Evidence: Pre and post-crime conduct is critical in ascertaining mental state.
Medical Records: Must be contemporaneous and relevant to the time of the offence.
A Narrow Gateway, Not a Shield
Section 84 IPC is a narrow and strictly interpreted exception, not a blanket shield for all mentally ill individuals. The courts exercise significant caution before granting such relief, balancing individual mental health conditions against societal interest and rule of law.
The jurisprudence around unsoundness of mind continues to evolve with modern psychiatry and forensic techniques. However, the central premise remains—only those truly incapable of understanding the nature of their actions due to mental illness at the time of the act can claim exemption from criminal liability.
