RESEARCH ARTICLE

doi: 10.53361/dmejl.v3i01.07

Insanity Defense: A Loophole for Criminals

Asmita Singh
Amity Law School, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),1860 offers the defense plea for the person
of unsound mind or who is insane. It may be stated that if the accused’s character is
devoted against the law and he proves withinside the courtroom docket of regulation
that he turned into insane at some stage in the occurrence of crime, he may break
out punishment. The regulation is open to misuse via ways of means resorted by.
In the indian legal system, “insanity defense” is a device in crook regulation to shop an
alleged from the responsibility of a crime. It is primarily based totally on the idea that
during the crime, the man or woman became affected by intellectual infection and,
consequently, became incapable of applying expertise in what they were doing. It is
right to refer here that a criminal idea which is consequently affected by intellectual
disease isn’t enough to show and prove insanity. The burden of proof to show insanity
ARTICLE INFO is at the alleged and he/she has to deliver the courtroom docket with proof much like
that of “preponderance of probability” as withinside the civil case.
*Correspondence: The insanity defense is thoroughly and massively utilized in criminal prosecutions.
asmisami1100@gmail. It’s far based totally on the idea that at the time of the crime, the accused modified
com into laid low with immoderate highbrow contamination and consequently, changed
Amity Law School, into incapable of appreciating the person of the crime and differentiating right from
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, incorrect behavior, consequently making them now no longer legally chargeable for
India the crime. The accused has the load of proving the exception of insanity by using a
“preponderance of probability” that’s just like a civil case. It’s far hard to determine
Dates: prison insanity, or even harder to efficaciously protect it in the courtroom. This
article specializes in the idea of insanity in regulation and the way it has come to be
Received: 30-09-2022
a loophole withinside the present day judicial system. The goal of writing this paper
Accepted: 16-11-2022 is to establish whether a long-standing law still serves a purpose or has just become
Published: 28-12-2022 a loophole. In this paper, several aspects of Section 84 are relevant to this situation.

Keywords:
Penal, preponderance
of proof, criminal
prosecutions, prison INTRODUCTION

I
insanity, civil case,
loophole nsanity is regarded as a criminal characteristic. Because mental illness hinders
a person from exercising free will, they are not prosecuted for the crimes that
How to Cite: they have committed. However, this does not rule out the use of evidence to
Singh A. (2022) Insanity evaluate the responsibilities of justice in a particular situation.
Defense: A Loophole for Mental insanity is a defense that is regularly invoked in criminal trials. It is
Criminals. DME Journal
of Law, 3(1), 48-54. presumed that the defendant was suffering from a severe mental illness at the
doi: 10.53361/dmejl. time of the offense, rendering them incapable of recognizing the nature of the
v3i01.07 crime and distinguishing between right and wrong behavior, so absolving them

DME
© Delhi Metropolitan Education, 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium
or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in
Journal of Law this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to
the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
 Insanity Dfence/ Insanity Defence: A Loophole For Criminals

of any legal guilt. The defense of insanity is now a the insanity defense? This paper discusses the
recognized legal concept. concept of defense of insanity, its advantages and
It also implies that the presence of a mental disadvantages, and the legal response to the issue.
disorder does not establish insanity. For the same Insanity is defined as the inability to recognize
reason that a criminal trial is held, the accused the nature of one’s actions, as well as the detrimental
must prove that the defense claimant is insane by or illegal implications of one’s decisions. When a
a “preponderance of evidence.” In a courtroom or person’s cognitive faculties are impaired to the
on the day of the hearing, it is difficult to establish degree where they are unable to comprehend the
legal insanity and even more difficult to establish repercussions of their actions, they are said to be
exact facts. suffering from schizophrenia. It is difficult to define
The concepts of guilt and innocence, blame insanity objectively while adhering to the letter of
and punishment, and other related concepts are the law. When it comes to mental illness or mental
all connected with the concept of responsibility. disease, insanity is generally associated with it. A
People’s fundamental human and constitutional mental disorder severe enough to prevent a person
rights are violated when they are punished for a from exercising legal competence and, as a result,
crime for which they are not responsible. It also from being held criminally or civilly liable.1 Mental
incorporates due process of law in the event that illness, mental disease, and mental defect are all
the individual is unable to defend himself in court, medical terminology that refer to illnesses that
invoking the concept of natural justice in the necessitate psychiatric or psychological intervention
process. or treatment. In other words, while someone
The necessity of “mens rea” is stipulated by suffering from a mental illness, disease, or disorder
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nevertheless, when can be considered legally crazy under certain
there is no evidence of malice aforethought circumstances; nevertheless, someone who does not
and the action was carried out as a result of suffer from such a condition cannot be considered
compelling circumstances, the action falls under legally insane under same circumstances.
the general exceptions set forth in Sections
76–106 of the IPC. The individual is therefore held The Insanity Defense
legally accountable for their acts. If the defense is The McNaughton Rule’s serves as the foundation for
successfully demonstrated in court, the exemption the insanity defense law in the IPC.
is granted. Insanity is a legal defense that can be Section 84 2 criminalizes “the conduct of a
used in criminal cases to demonstrate that the mentally ill individual,” according to the official
defendant was suffering from a serious mental translation. When a person attempts to conduct an
disease at the time of the offense. infraction but is unable to understand the nature of
Consequently, the individual may be completely the activity or engages in illegal or unlawful behavior,
unaware of their conscious thought. Insanity is the attempt is not deemed an offense under the law.
a defense that can be used by a person who is Allow this segment to go into the depths of the
not mentally ill in order to avoid punishment; subject. It will not be sufficient in this case to present
nevertheless, this defense is only granted in evidence of insanity. According to the principle of
exceptional circumstances. While the defense of “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, a criminal
insanity was established to assist the judicial system, act must be committed with the intent to commit
the vast majority of people use it to avoid facing legal a crime.
repercussions. People will become more involved in Whether the accused intended to conduct the
such crimes if there are no disincentives in place. The specified thing is equally important in determining
research revolves around three pertinent research whether or not they are guilty or not is determined
questions: How might the insanity defense be used by their intent. Understanding the person’s mental
to benefit criminals? Is this a strategy that should
be used every time? When should you employ 1 Black’s Law Dictionary
2 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | 2022 49 DME Journal of Law

 Insanity Dfence/ Insanity Defence: A Loophole For Criminals

status is also essential to comprehend the crime When someone’s mental status prevents them
that was committed on them. It is necessary to from committing criminal activity, they are labelled
demonstrate that the accused held the necessary insane. In India, the “Insanity Defense” is a legal
“men” responsible for the conduct committed in approach used to exonerate criminal defendants
order to establish strict liability, subject to specific who have been found insane. It is presumptively
exemptions. assumed that the individual was mentally ill and
In accordance with Section 84 of the IPC, couldn’t grasp their acts.
■ “Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea” - an act One of the most severe forms of schizophrenia
is not criminal unless it is done with the intent to is chronic schizophrenia, which is characterized
commit a crime. by the belief that the individual suffering from
■ “Furiosi nulla voluntas est” - a mentally ill person it is forever mad. It is possible that the person is
is unable to exercise free will; permanently mad, unable to comprehend the
In accordance with the applicable jurisdiction, courts gravity of any situation, based on their past records
employ one or more of the following tests: and experiences.
■ According to the McNaughton Rule, the defendant Second, transient insanity is caused by the
is unable to comprehend or distinguish between Paraneoplastic Syndrome, which is a mental illness
right and wrong as a result of psychiatric disease. that results in brief periods of madness. Transient
■ Because of a mental condition, the defendant insanity can manifest itself in the form of depression,
was unable to control his impulses, which anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, and other mental
resulted in him committing a criminal conduct. illnesses. Not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty
■ As a result of his involvement in a criminal but unable to be tried due to insanity, respectively.
offense, the defendant’s “mental impairment” If the suspect is found to be crazy at the time of the
was not professionally identified and treated. alleged offense, it must be demonstrated that he
■ This means that the defendant either did not was incapable of comprehending or apprehending
understand or was unable to function within the essence of his or her actions. Mental illness has
the limitations of the law when his conduct was never been used as an excuse for criminal behaviour
unlawful in nature. in the United States. The suspect’s mental state
Many states that recognise legal insanity rely on the should be so deteriorated that he is unable to
McNaughton rule (which is frequently employed in comprehend the nature of the crime.
conjunction with the irresistible impulse test) or the
Model Penal Code as a guideline. Only one state, The Evolution Of Insanity Defense
New Hampshire, utilizes the traditional Durham. Historically, rules against insanity extend back
to ancient Greece and Rome. According to a
Types Of Insanity For Defense 1581 “English law book,” a “lunatic” who murders
A legal defense in which an accused admits to someone while in a state of mental illness will not
committing a crime but claims he is not accountable be punished. The “Wild Beast” test was developed
as a result of a major mental disease is defined as in the 18th century by British courts, which states
follows: that an accused person is not guilty if they knew
It’s more of an excuse than it is an explanation in “an infant or a wild beast” at the time of the crime.
this case. This is a legitimate defense in the event of It was the nation’s first legal statute, and it cleared
criminal prosecution. The psychiatric evaluation of a the way for the establishment of the law of insanity
criminal is now required by law. In criminal law, the in the United States. It also marked the beginning of
concept of “state of mind” is just as significant as the fight for the Defense of Insanity. Following the
the concept of “mens rea.” The absence of a mental success of the “Wild Beast Test,” a slew of other tests,
illness is the primary emphasis of the doctrine of such as the “Crazy Delusion Test” and the “Good
mens rea. It is vital to analyse both the criminal’s and Evil Test,” were developed. These three criteria
mental and physical state during the investigation. served as the foundation for the Insanity Defense

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | 2022 DME Journal of Law

 Insanity Dfence/ Insanity Defence: A Loophole For Criminals

and the world-renowned McNaughton Test, among who is incapable of recognizing the nature of their
other things. behavior or the fact that they are breaking the law.”
The McNaughton’s Test was developed by the McNaughton’s Rule is invoked by the code to justify
English courts in the case of R v. McNaughton3 , insanity.
which is now Section 84 of the criminal procedure Both of the following key criminal law principles
code in the United States. McNaughton accidentally are included in Section 84 of the Penal Code:
shot Edward Drummond in the head after mistaking 1. “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”: An act is
him for someone else. Because of his mental not criminal unless the mentality is guilty.
instability, he was dismissed by the court. The jury, 2. “Furiosi nulla voluntas est”: People suffering
on the other hand, found him to be mentally ill and from mental diseases as a result are not held
recommended that he be institutionalised. Because accountable because they lack the ability to
of this decision, the “House of Lords” debated reason rationally or to demonstrate the necessary
McNaughton’s Rules, summarised in the following guilty intent.
section.
1. Each individual is presumed sane and logical The Benef its of Insanity Defense
enough to be held accountable for his acts unless The insanity defense helps to preserve the lives
and until proven otherwise. of mentally ill persons who behave like children,
2. In order to establish insanity as a basis for completely unaware of what they are doing or
defense, there must be substantial evidence that the repercussions of their actions and decisions. A
the accused was insane at the time of the offense person who has been insane for a long period of
or that his actions were unlawful or contradictory time is unable to comprehend the gravity or nature
to the law. of the deed that they have admitted to having
3. If the accused was aware that he was about to committed.
commit an illegal act, he is responsible. Infractions are considered violations of the law,
4. A medical witness who has not encountered the whereas offenses are considered violations of the
accused prior to the trial is not qualified to decide suspect’s human dignity. Following the commission
about his or her mental condition. of the offense, defense actions are taken. It is
5. The criminal ac tivit y is carried out by a beneficial to the mentally sick individual who
hallucinating individual who is completely employs this defense technique.
oblivious of what he is doing. He will be held
accountable for his conduct in the same way that Inconvenience of Insanity Defense
he was held accountable for his activities when The use of the insanity defense to exonerate the
he believed his surroundings were the same. guilty has been frequently misapplied, putting the
In the field of insanity defense, these guidelines concept of the rule of law in risk of being eroded
form precedents that are followed by other courts. further. Because of widespread abuse, numerous
When a person is suspected of committing a countries, including Germany, Argentina, Thailand,
crime, the criteria place a strong emphasis on and the majority of the United Kingdom, have
determining their “understandability.” It is necessary prohibited the use of this defense.
to establish insanity by showing that the accused Because the burden of proving insanity rests
lacked judgement, either because he was utterly with the accused, establishing and asserting this
unconcerned about the nature and seriousness of defense will involve time and effort on his or her
the crime, or because he was not completely aware part. When it comes to demonstrating insanity in a
that his conduct were wrong. In Indian law, the term medical setting, it is rather straightforward; however,
“insanity” does not appear to be defined in any way. proving it in a judicial setting takes time and requires
According to Section 84 of the IPC, “nothing” persuasive evidence.
constitutes an offense “if it is performed by someone The majority of insanity defense cases end up
3 R v. McNaughton, (1843) 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722 with the accused being charged with criminal

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | 2022 51 DME Journal of Law

 Insanity Dfence/ Insanity Defence: A Loophole For Criminals

responsibility and punished because it is impractical Despite the fact that Section 844 is intended to
to meet all of the requirements for avoiding criminal ensure that mentally ill individuals receive proper
responsibility under Section 84. treatment, mistakes do occur from time to time.
Consequently, it is impossible to determine Therefore, more generic concepts like as emotions
whether someone’s thinking was “sound or
and pre-act conditions must be taken into consid-
unsound” when the crime was committed.
eration. There are plans to widen the definition of
Criticism legal insanity to include more indications of med-
ical insanity in the future. In order to eradicate
Despite the fact that insanity is rarely used as
crime, rather than focusing on the individual, the
a defense in criminal proceedings, it is still a
contentious issue. We question if it is necessary to attention should be on the entire community. In-
defend crazy on a regular basis. As a result of the stead, these criminals should be detained in psy-
possibility of proving insanity in some situations, chiatric facilities and evaluated for their mental
a person accused of heinous and grievous acts health in order to avoid erroneous acquittals or
will be declared not guilty. When the defense of convictions in the future. People’s fate should not
insanity is raised, the defendant admits to his or be left to the whims of a single judge, but should
her crime and asks that the case be dismissed on instead be decided after consultation with a psy-
the grounds of the defendant’s or her mental state. chiatrist. A judge may be obligated by law to make
Criminals have been known to pretend mental
a specific judgement in a particular case. It should
illness in order to avoid being apprehended. Using
insanity as a defense is, at the very least, hazardous. be necessary to obtain a doctor’s note.
A fundamental principle of criminal law appears to
be in danger of being overturned. The concept of Landmark Insanity Defense Case
insanity is founded on the notion that punishment
is only justifiable if the criminal deserves it in the In the case of Ashirudeen Ahamed v. The King (1948)
first place. If the person who committed the crime the court sought to create a new standard of insanity
is to be punished, he or she must have moral for the first time. In order to qualify for protection
culpability as a moral actor. The inability to manage under Section 845, the accused must demonstrate
irrationality or compulsions that result from a mental that he was unaware of the nature of the alleged
disease makes a person incapable of acting in a act, that the act was illegal, or that he had no idea
morally responsible manner. Punishing someone that what he was doing was illegal in the first place.
who is suffering from such a serious illness would In the case of Dayabhai Chhagan bhai Thakkar v.
be unjust. Section 84 treats mental illness and Gujarat6, the court established the following criteria
cognitive disability as synonymous. Other types of for determining the accused’s mental state: In
mental diseases are not accepted as evidence in order to determine the suspect’s mental state, it is
courts of law. A variety of psychological disorders necessary to look at the events leading up to, during,
can impair a person’s capacity to operate to the and immediately following the crime.
point that they lose control over their behavior and In Bapu Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan7, the
become dependent on others. These are disorders Supreme Court defined this defense by stating
of the mind and one may mention about the which conditions are covered by this defense.
exceptions under Section 300 IPC like grave and Insane, egotistical, or irascible behaviour, as well as
sudden provocation. It is possible for someone to be any illness that impairs one’s ability to control one’s
completely be unaware of what they have done until thoughts, emotions, or willpower, are all outlawed
after the event has occurred. His behaviours, on the 4 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84
other hand, were dictated by his current emotional 5 ibid
state. It’s possible that his cognitive functioning is 6 Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964
SC 1563.
fully normal.
7 Bapu Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 3 SCC 509.

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | 2022 DME Journal of Law

 Insanity Dfence/ Insanity Defence: A Loophole For Criminals

by law. When the accused suffers from periods of Burden of Proof

insanity or epilepsy but otherwise appears normal,
this is also insufficient evidence. Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act13 provides for the
In 2008, the Supreme Court of India ruled in assertion of insanity as an affirmative defense to a
Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh8 that criminal allegation levelled against an individual.
Section 84 of the IPC governs accountability in cases In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is
of alleged insanity.” always on the prosecution and never shifts from
Despite being historically associated with mental one side to the other. Essentially, this is based on
illness, the term “insanity,” is not defined. The stages the fundamental premise that an accused person
of mental illness are described by this term. The is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty
condition of a person’s mind does not absolve them by the prosecution. As stated in Section 8414, the
of criminal guilt. According to the author, there accused must demonstrate that he was mad both
must be a distinction between insanity and medical before and after the alleged crime occurred. The
insanity. The court only deals with legal madness, not court stated in State of MP v. Ahamadullah15 that
medical lunacy, as its primary focus. In the case of “the general legal assumption is that an offender
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand9, the Supreme is sane at the time of the offense.” This alleviates
Court held that a prisoner must demonstrate “legal prosecutors from having to establish an accused’s
insanity” rather than “medical insanity” in order to mental capacity. Therefore, the accused must
be exonerated under Section 84 of the IPC, rather establish the existence of conditions that fall under
than “medical insanity.” The court must go back in the purview of Section 8416. All that is required of the
time to the time when the crime was committed in accused is to demonstrate that he or she was insane
order to determine the accused’s state of mind. The at the time of the crime. In this particular instance,
only method to decide whether or not the accused the preponderance of the evidence in his favour is
was in a state of mind that qualified him for Section sufficient to show his innocence of the charges.
8410 protection is to investigate the events leading
Interpretation by The Judicial
up to, during, and immediately following the offense.
System
Clearly, evidence of the accused’s mental condition
at the time of the offense must be shown in order In criminal cases, and particularly homicide cases,
to qualify for the exemption from prosecution.” insanity has long been recognised as a valid defense.
In Lakshmi v. State11 , the court emphasised Everyone is assumed to be the sane until they are
that an accused must be “incapable” of knowing proven to be insane. Because the prosecution must
whether his activities are legal or illegal in order to prove that the defendant was insane at the time of
be found not guilty under Section 8412. Knowledge the offense, mental illness and psychopathy cannot
of something is distinct from the actual possession be used to obtain immunity from prosecution,
of that knowledge. The former is a possibility, according to a Supreme Court decision.
whereas the latter is a consequence. Regardless of DK Jain’s husband slashed his wife’s head off
what happens, a person who possesses the former due to mental illness in the case of DK Jain. Section
is not protected by the law. A natural or inherent 8417, as established in the case of Hari Singh Gond
deficiency may be protected, but a mistaken or vs. State of Madhya Pradesh18, establishes a legal
erroneous belief arising from a changed potential bar for responsibility in circumstances of serious
will not be protected under any circumstances.” mental illness. The concept of “mental health” is a

13 The Indian Evidence Act, Act 1 of 1872 Sec 105

8 Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 14 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84
109 15 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahamadullah, AIR 1921 SC 998
9 Surendra Mishra v State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627 16 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84
10 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84 17 ibid
11 Lakshmi v. State, AIR 1963 All 534 18 Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC
12 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84 31 SCC 109

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | 2022 53 DME Journal of Law

 Insanity Dfence/ Insanity Defence: A Loophole For Criminals

fallacy. However, the term “insanity” has no inherent the ability of the law to achieve its primary objective.
meaning. This phrase refers to a wide range of Another reason why the act is a loophole is that the
mental illnesses that are characterized by recurring court must ascertain the defendant’s intent, which
episodes of insanity. is an extremely difficult process in and of itself. It
In the case of Kamala Bunia’s case (Kamala is not recommended to use it on a regular basis.
Bhuniya vs State Of West Bengal, 2006), the The defense of insanity should only be invoked in
defendant was charged with murder and tried exceptional circumstances. Even if the final decision
as an axis for the crime. The prosecution failed to is left to the discretion of the court, public laws must
discharge his original responsibility for the accused’s be administered in a fair and consistent manner.
mens rea involvement at the time of the offense, As a result, the law of insanity has evolved into a
which resulted in the conviction. Consequently, they tool that criminals might use to avoid facing legal
are granted Section 8419 while demonstrating their consequences. The Indian courts have consistently
insanity at the time of their crime. urged for a more progressive interpretation of the
term “unsoundness of mind” in the Penal Code in
CONCLUSION light of recent medical advances, particularly in
psychiatry.
According to the findings of the investigation,
Section 8420 includes the McNaughton Rules. It
deals with the defense of insanity, which is based
BIBLIOGRAPHY
only on the behaviour of the suspect and is the https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Insanity-De-
fense-A-Loophole-For-Criminals.pdf
only criterion for criminal guilt in the United States
https: //law timesjournal.in/insanit y- defense -a-loop -
of America. The ability to determine someone’s hole-for-criminals/
mental state at the time of a crime is difficult for https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7216-insan-
law enforcement officers to achieve. In addition, ity-defense-a-loopholes-for-criminals.html
proving innocence in the case of a mentally ill person https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12841854_The_
is difficult to accomplish. This line of reasoning may insanity_defense_Five_years_of_research_1993-1997
https://lawsamjho.in/2020/03/03/insanity-as-a-defense-in-
be used by a logical person to avoid punishment.
ipc/
The condition constitutes a loophole since it impairs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282615/
19 The Indian Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860 Sec 84 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676201/
20 ibid

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | 2022 DME Journal of Law