INSANITY

K S GRACY SUNDAR
1st Sem , LLM
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
INSANITY
THE BASIS OF THE LAW
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL INSANITY

IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE AS A DEFENCE

DURHAM RULE

PARAMETERS OF INSANITY
GENERAL TRENDS IN THE DEFENCE INSANITY
JUDICIAL INTEPRETATION OF SECTION 84
INSANITY DEFENCE
ELEMENTS OF CRIME

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS MENS REA AND INSANITY DEFENSE

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES
 INTRODUCTION

The subject of insanity is one of the most difficult in the whole range of the law of crimes and has
given rise to endless discussions and controversies. An examination of the inner workings of that
complicated machinery called the human mind is always difficult and the difficulty is greatly
enhanced when that mind is not normal. Insanity is a term that concerns not only lawyers but
psychiatrists and psychologists as well. Perhaps the earliest measure that psychiatrists utilized to
assess the responsibility was the degree of the unreasonableness of the offender's behavior. A criminal
act that seems alien to any goal that a rational man would pursue has traditionally been locked upon as
a sign of illness, both psychiatry and the culture as a whole are often willing to assume that the
unreasonable man is a sick man and that the sick man is not responsible for his actions. Mental illness
was thought of as being caused by hereditary or acquired organic impairment. The structural defect
was held responsible for such an individual's unreasonable behavior. When psychiatrists enter the
courtroom and testify that certain mentally ill people are not responsible for their behavior, they speak
against philosophies many of which are essential to therapeutic effectiveness. This inconsistency or
‘effort to have it both ways’ is confusing and illogical. The philosophical basis of exemption of insane
offendors from criminal liability is perhabs traceable to the functional limitation of the retributive and
deterrent theories of punishment which inspired the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The retributive theory though understandable as a desire to alleviate the feelings of revenge of the
injured person in society generally is pointless and unrealistic when looked from the point of view of
insane offendor who is unable to make elementary moral discriminations and is thus incapable of
adjusting with social demands of behaviours. It is equally clear that such persons are not likely to be
deterred from the commission of crime by the threat of punishment. The function of test of
responsibility in such cases, therefore becomes primarily ‘to identify those who be regarded as
ineligible for the process of criminal justice with their inherent punitive ingrediants and who therefore
must be conceived solely as the recipient of care, custody and therapy.

The Indian law on the defense of insanity is embodied in Section 84 Indian Penal Code. It is broadly
based on the M’Naghtens rules. In Criminal law a crime is an act of commission or omission for
which the state provides for punishment. One of the important ingredients of crime is Mens Rea ( that
is a guilty mind). Thus the famous maxim in criminal law is –Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea ,that is an act is not guilty unless done with a guilty mind. An insane person is not capable of
having the requisite mens rea to commit an offense and so law allows insane people to take the benefit
of the defense of insanity. It is said that a mad man is best punished by his own madness-“furiosus
furore suo punier”. It is further said that a mad man has no will-furiosus nulla voluntes est. He is
therefore, in all ages an object of consideration.
 INSANITY
In order to reach the level of irresponsibility, insanity must pass the criteria outlined in the
Macnaughton Rules, which form the main basis of Indian law. However, these regulations date back a
century, and they were established when very little was understood about psychiatry. They do not
measure up to the current level of understanding. One of the main complaints directed at the current
legal system is its seeming inability to recognize the scope and character of pathological crimes.
However, insanity affects a person's entire personality, including their will and emotions, in addition
to their intellect. Even though he otherwise exhibits clear signs of mental illness, his ability to
distinguish right from wrong may still be fully intact. The guidelines include reference to the
offender's mental condition "at the moment of committing the conduct." In many circumstances,
abnormality may not be evident. For instance, a person with schizophrenia may not exhibit obvious
symptoms when committing a crime, but they may still be present and personality degeneration may
happen quickly in a matter of weeks. Paresis and feeble-mindedness are examples of mental diseases
that take a long time to manifest. It is important to emphasize the disturbance's prior manifestations.

According to the specific ruling in the Macnaughton case, a person who does an illegal conduct out of
a hallucination will not be exonerated of cr iminal guilt unless the delusional facts would, if true, offer
a defense. The goal of the regulations is to hold a crazy person to the same standards as a regular
person. It is highly possible that he believes there is a link between his crime and his delusion, even
though this is not actually the case when thinking rationally. Currently, epilepsy as a defence is only
effective in cases where the accused really experienced an epileptic seizure and lost consciousness at
the time of the offence—a almost impossible criterion. In the current situation, insanity is defined by
law as the presumption that the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the offense and
was therefore unable to understand the nature of the crime and distinguish between right and wrong
behavior. As a result, the defendant is not held legally responsible for the crime. The concept of
insanity defense is not clinical or medical; rather, it is legal. Thus, the mere presence of a mental
illness is insufficient to establish insanity. Similar to a civil case, the defendant must establish the
defense of insanity by a "preponderance of the facts." It is widely acknowledged that a person is
immune to punishment if they are incapable of committing crimes.The majority of civilized nations
have laws that acknowledge this. The Indian Penal Code, Section 84, addresses the defense of insanity
in relation to the "act of a person of unsound mind."

We must familiarize ourselves with the standards used to determine insanity in order to understand the
statute law of insanity. Stated differently, we may refer to the standards or limitations of insanity.
We are able to determine insanity using two different sorts of exams. There are two types of tests:

The medical test and The legal test.

The parameters or tests used here are not the same.

Particularly pertinent is Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (formerly section 84 IPC), which st
ates that an act committed by an individual with a mental disorder that prevents them from knowing t
he nature of the conduct or its wrongfulness is not regarded as a crime.
This part, which was inspired by McNaughton's rule, slightly deviates from it.
A finding of "not guilty because of insanity" as opposed to "guilty but mentally ill" results from
Section22 of the BNS, which fully absolves those who lack mental capacity of all responsibility, even
when McNaughten's rule permits the acknowledgment of an offense.

THE BASIS OF THE LAW

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal irresponsibility in relation to insanity. Its
foundation is largely found in England's Macnaughton Rules. Edward Drummond was shot by Daniel
M'Naghten in January 1843, causing injuries. Following the five days of the act, Drummond passed
away, and M'Naghten was charged with his murder. He contended that his lunacy absolved him of
responsibility.

At the preliminary hearing, evidence of Drummond's shooting was presented, and witnesses were
contacted on behalf of the respondent, M'Naghten, to confirm that he was not in a sound state of mind
at the time he submitted the demonstration. Some of the witnesses who provided this evidence had
just examined M'Naghten, while others had not seen him prior to the preliminary and formed their
opinions based on the evidence provided by other witnesses. According to the clinical evidence
provided, even individuals with healthy brains can be affected by depressing daydreams, as was the
case with M'Naghten. A person operating under such a dream may normally have a moral perspective
on right and wrong, but deeds connected to their hallucination may be communicated to them by
forces beyond their control, depriving them of this understanding. According to the medical findings,
he suffered from severe, uncontrollable delusions that impaired his ability to distinguish between
good and wrong. The people was outraged by this decision. Although the case never made it to the
House of Lords, it made use of an almost absolute procedure by which the judges of the High Court
might be required to advise the House of Lords what the law in such a case was and what was the
proper direction to a jury. This question arose in a debate in the House of Lords regarding whether
that really was the law. One of the questions that came up was whether someone who commits an
offense as a result of an irrational illusion about the state of affairs be absolved.

The answer will depend on the specifics of the delusion, but assuming, as we did previously, that he is
not insane in any other way and is only suffering from a partial delusion, we believe he should be held
accountable in the same manner as if the facts surrounding the delusion were real. For instance, he
would not be held accountable if, while acting in self-defense and while under the influence of his
hallucination, he killed another man who he believed was trying to take his life. Should he have killed
the deceased in retaliation for his perceived harm, believing that the deceased had seriously damaged
his reputation and wealth, he would have faced consequences.

Distinction between Legal and Medical Insanity

The legal responsibility test, as opposed to the medical test, is outlined in Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is evident that a morbid state of mind is the source of the absence of will, in addition to
the lack of understanding maturity. The legal and medical perspectives diverge on this sick mental
state, which absolves one from criminal liability. From a medical perspective, it is likely accurate to
state that everyone who commits a criminal act is insane and should be exempt from criminal
responsibility. From a legal perspective, however, an individual must be treated equally as long as
they are capable of differentiating between right and wrong and are aware that the act they are
carrying out is against the law.

The Supreme Court has decided that psychopaths and others classified as "mentally ill" cannot request
exemption from a criminal prosecution because they must prove they were insane at the time the
crime was committed. Thus, in actuality, not all individuals with mental illnesses are shielded from
criminal responsibility. A distinction between medical and legal insanity must be made.In affirming
the life sentence of a man who severed his wife's head, Arijit Pasayat and the DK Jain Bench of
Justices said. According to the supreme court's ruling on Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a
psychopath's partial hallucination, irresistible impulse, or obsessive behavior alone do not shield them
from criminal prosecution (IPC). The Bench declared that the burden of demonstrating insanity would
rest with the accused, as stipulated in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence, and that the accused would
not be entitled to the protection of Section 84 of the IPC, which grants immunity from criminal
prosecution to persons of unsound mind.

The Supreme Court noted in the Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh decision that Section
84 lays out the standard of accountability in situations involving claims of mental illness. The IPC
contains no definition for "mental soundness." But this term has generally been interpreted by the
courts as being synonymous with insanity. However, there is no specific meaning for the term
"insanity" itself. This word refers to different levels of mental illness. Therefore, a person with a
mental illness is not automatically free from criminal liability. It is necessary to distinguish between
medical and legal insanity. Legal insanity, not medical insanity, is the focus of a court.

It was noted that "any person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto protected from criminal
culpability" in the Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand case. Moreover, in the case of Shrikant
Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that "the totality of the
circumstances seen in the light of the recorded evidence" would prove that the offense was committed
when determining the offense under Section 84 of the IPC. "The unsoundness of the mind prior to and
following the incident is a relevant fact," was added.

Mental incompetence must have existed at the time the Act was committed.
Whether the accused has proven that he was unsound at the time of the crime is the first factor a court
will take into account while defending insanity. Section 84 of the Penal Code makes no mention of the
word "insanity."
In the case of Rattan Lal v. State of M.P , the court established that the crime's actual commission is
the critical moment at which the accused's state of mind must be established. Whether the accused
was in a condition that qualified them for benefits under Section 84, however, depends on the
circumstances that preceded, attended, and followed the crime. Stated differently, the behavior
preceding, accompanying, and following the occurrence may be significant in ascertaining the
accused's mental state at the time of the offense, but not those occurring at a later date.

The accused in Kamala Bhuniya v. West Bengal State was put to trial using an axis for the murder of
her husband. The investigating officer noted the accused's mental instability at the outset of the
investigation, and a lawsuit was brought against her, alleging that she was mad at the time of the
incident. It was decided that there was no motive for the murder, and the prosecution's responsibility
was to set up the accused's medical examination. The defendant did not try to run away or take the
implicating weapon with them. The prosecution neglected to fulfill its primary obligation to prove that
the accused had mens rea at the time the offense was committed. The accused qualified to receive
benefits under Section 84. Therefore, the accused was found guilty of culpable homicide rather than
murder because it was demonstrated that the accused was insane at the time the offense was
committed.

IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE AS A DEFENCE

An irresistible impulse is a form of insanity in which a person lacks self-control over their behaviors,
even when they are aware that they are wrong. The Irresistible Impulse Test was acknowledged as a
distinct test in some situations, but in others it was thought of as a variant of Mc'Naughten's rule.
Though the Irresistible Impulse Test was thought to be a vital corrective on Mc’Naughten’s selective
perception, it nevertheless had some faults of its own.

UNDER ENGLISH LAW

The legislation introducing the irresistible impulse test did so in 1884. Out of the 51 states in the
United States, this exam was relevant in 18 of them by 1967. In some English circumstances,
irresistible drive that can be attributed to a mental illness seems to be a valid justification.
In the well-known Lorena Bobbit (1993) case, the defense of irresistible impulse was invented. On
June 23, 1993, the defendant stole a knife from her kitchen and injured her husband by chopping off
his penis while he was sleeping. Her attorneys said that before she did this act, her husband had raped
her and that she had been the victim of domestic abuse during their marriage. She asked that she be
subject to an irresistible impulse despite being fully aware of the repercussions of her conduct since
she was unable to stop herself. The first state to employ this defense in its original form was the state
of Virginia. It was decided that she was not guilty because of her transient insanity.

UNDER INDIAN LAW

The mere existence of an overpowering impulse would often not absolve liability when there is
sufficient capability to discriminate between good and wrong. Because irresistible impulse is outside
the purview of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not included under insanity.
In the case of Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya v. State of Kerala (1967), it was decided that in order to
qualify for an exemption under section 84, insanity had to be proven at the time of the act; even if this
is proven in court, Indian law does not defend against a person who simply loses control due to
excitement or an irresistible impulse.
In a another case, Ganesh v. Shrawan (1969), it was noted that the defense of insanity could not be
accepted just because the accused committed the murder on an overpowering urge and had no clear
motive for doing so.

DURHAM RULE

The Durham defense, commonly referred to as the "Durham rule" or the "product test," was
developed in the 1954 case of Durham v. United States. In that case, the defendant admitted to
breaking into a residence but claimed he was insane in order to protect himself. The Court of Appeal
deemed the two existing tests—the irresistible impulse test and the McNaughten Rule—to be out of
date. However, it was eventually realized that the Durham rule could be applied in addition to these
tests and that both of these tests could still be used.
There are two primary parts to this defense:

1. The defendant must first have a mental illness or disability. The Durham case does not provide an
explanation for these terms, but the terminology used by the court opinion suggests an attempt to
place greater emphasis on objective psychological norms than on the subjective cognition of the
defendant.

2. The second component relates to causality. Criminal action should be excused under the
circumstances if it is "caused" by a mental illness or defect.

Only New Hampshire presently accepts this criteria since other jurisdictions have deemed it to be
overly broad.

PARAMETERS OF INSANITY

Not all forms of mental illness will make a person legally irresponsible. A person of unsound
mind is only released from criminal liability in specific situations. In order to establish an
insanity defense, it must be demonstrated that the accused suffered from a mental illness at
the time of the alleged offense, impairing his ability to think clearly and recognize the
wrongfulness of his actions.

The two definitions of insanity—legal and medical—have already been discussed. Legal
parameters can now be further separated into two categories: statutory parameters, which are
the standards outlined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and judicial parameters, which
are the standards of insanity established by the courts and which are either distinct from or
outside the purview of section 84.

The legal standard of accountability in cases of purported mental insanity is mentioned in

Section 84. The fundamental tenet of section 84, according to Sir Hari Singh Gaur, is that all
men are believed to be sane. It is the legal standard outlined in section 84, as opposed to the
medical standard, that determines whether an act qualifies as criminal. The M'Naghten Rules
and this section are equivalent in content. Blackstone contends that a lack of will that serves
as a defense for criminal guilt results from a flawed or vitiated understanding. The rule of law
as it applies to lunatics and idiots is hence furious furore suo punite, meaning that they are not
held accountable for their crimes. A lunatic is punished only by his insanity, according to this
Latin proverb. Two further maxims in this context serve as the cornerstone of section 84.
They are furiosus absentis locoest, which implies that a madman is like someone who is not
there, and furiosus nulla voluntus est, which indicates that a madman has no wills. If people
are the ones committing the crimes, then idiots and insane people should be absolved of their
blame.

Section 84 IPC reads as under-

“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.”

Thus the essential ingredients of Section 84 are :

 The accused must be of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the

offence. The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind must exist is at the
time of commission of the offence. This is a question of fact and has to be decided by
the court from case to case basis. In Sheralli wali mohd v State of Maharashtra the
Apex Court held that to establish that acts done are not offences under Section 84 of
the IPC it must be proved clearly, that at the time of commission of the act the
accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act because of unsoundness of
mind.
 In Rattan lal v State of MP the court held that whether or not the accused is entitled
to the benefit of Section 84 can only be established from the circumstances which
preceded, attended and followed the crime. 2. The accused must not be capable of
knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to
law. To get the benefit of Section 84 the cognitive faculties of the mind must be so
impaired that the accused becomes incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that
it was wrong or contrary to law. In Queen Empress v K N Shah the accused was
suffering from mental derangement for some time. A person put his son in the
company of the accused and on returning he found the accused hiding in the jungle
and his son was killed by the accused. The court held that the circumstances attending
the murder showed that he was not deprived of the reasoning power to distinguish
between right and wrong (e.g. he hid himself in the jungle). Similarly in the case of
Laxmi v State , the accused a drug addict was convicted for the murder of his
stepbrother. He assaulted his step brother with a pharsa and then fled the spot. The
 court held him guilty and not entitled to the benefit under section 84 as he knew the
nature of his act as evident from his fleeing the spot to evade arrest.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 84:

 This section states: "Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time
of doing it, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is wrong, or that it
is contrary to law, by reason of unsoundness of mind."
 This clause establishes the criteria for the insanity defense, focusing on the
individual's mental state at the time of the offense.

When someone commits a crime, their capacity to comprehend the nature of their conduct or
distinguish between right and wrong is significantly impaired. This condition is referred to in
law as insanity. In order to determine criminal responsibility, this idea is essential.

In India, the legal framework regarding insanity is primarily outlined in Section 84 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section states that a person is not criminally responsible for an
act if, at the time of doing it, they were incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it
was wrong due to a severe mental disorder. The burden of proof lies with the accused to
demonstrate their insanity.

The insanity defense in the UK is governed by the M'Naghten Rules. These regulations state
that if a defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the offense, which prevented
them from comprehending the nature of their conduct or recognizing that they were wrong,
they may be released from criminal prosecution. If the defense is effective, the defendant may
be judged not guilty by reason of insanity and may get a hospital order rather than a prison
sentence. However, the case must be backed by medical evidence.

While each state in the USA has its own criteria for the insanity defense, the M'Naghten Rule,
the Irresistible Impulse Test, and the Durham Rule are the most widely used ones. Like the
UK, the M'Naghten Rule places emphasis on the defendant's capacity to comprehend the
nature of their acts or recognize that what they did was wrong. The Irresistible Impulse Test
examines whether the defendant's mental disorder prevented them from exercising self-
control. The less frequently applied Durham Rule states that if a defendant's illegal act was
the result of a mental disorder, they are not legally liable. It is possible that each state has
unique guidelines for proving insanity.

GENERAL TRENDS IN INSANITY DEFENSE

1. Increased Scrutiny: Courts are increasingly scrutinizing claims of insanity, requiring robust
medical evidence and comprehensive evaluations by mental health professionals.
2. Legislative Changes: Some jurisdictions have introduced reforms aimed at clarifying the
standards for the insanity defense or restricting its application. This includes more stringent
requirements for defendants to prove their mental state at the time of the offense.
3. Public Awareness: Greater public awareness of mental health issues has led to ongoing
discussions about the balance between justice and the treatment of mentally ill offenders.

Notable Cases

1. USA: Recent high-profile cases have drawn attention to the insanity defense, with defendants
undergoing extensive psychological evaluations. Some have resulted in landmark rulings that
could influence how future cases are handled.
2. UK: Reforms and discussions about the use of the insanity defense have emerged, particularly
concerning the treatment of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity and how they
are managed within the mental health system.
3. India: Courts have also dealt with several significant cases where the insanity defense was
invoked, leading to discussions on the adequacy of mental health assessments in legal
proceedings.

Key Provisions Related to Insanity in BNS

1. Definition of Insanity: The BNS outlines criteria for determining criminal responsibility in
cases of mental illness, similar to the IPC but with updated language and criteria reflecting
current psychological understanding.
2. Assessment and Evidence: It emphasizes the necessity of a thorough psychological
evaluation by qualified professionals to substantiate claims of insanity.
3. Treatment vs. Punishment: The focus is often on rehabilitative measures for individuals
found not criminally responsible due to mental illness, rather than purely punitive actions.
4. Legal Procedures: There are specific procedures for how insanity defenses are to be
evaluated in court, aiming to streamline the legal process while ensuring fairness.
 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 84

 Legal and medical insanity

It is clear from the numerous case laws that the term "unsoundness of mind" has been
equated with insanity by the courts. The Supreme Court ruled in Bapu @ Gajraj
Singh v. State of Rajasthan9 that there are several levels of mental illness that are
referred to as insanity. Therefore, a person with a mental illness is not automatically
free from criminal responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between
legal and medical insanity; legal insanity, not medical insanity, is what the law deals
with. In other situations, the courts held the same opinion. It is a case of medical
insanity if there are adequate medical reasons to conclude that an individual is insane.
For the purposes of Section 84 IPC, however, the defense must demonstrate that the
defendant's cognitive abilities were compromised at the time of the offense,
preventing him from understanding the nature of the deed. In Surendra Mishra v.
State of Jharkhand10, the court determined that Section 84 of the IPC cannot be
applied just because the accused is egotistical, strange, irascible, or has occasional
fits of lunacy.
 Intoxication and insanity

Under Section 85, involuntary intoxication offers the same level of protection as insanity under
Section 84. In cases where a criminal offense necessitates the presence of an intention to commit the
crime, voluntary intoxication serves as a complete justification solely in terms of "intention."
However, being voluntarily intoxicated is not an excuse for a crime wherein "knowledge"—as
opposed to "intention"—must be present. A person would be released from criminal responsibility if
they have delirium tremens as a result of overindulging in alcohol and if this causes them to become
so insane that they are unable to comprehend the nature of their actions.

 Irresistible impulse and insanity

When someone has an irresistible inclination, they lose control over their will to stop
themselves from acting, rather than their awareness of what they are doing. It has an impact
on one's capacity to regulate their emotions. Rejected overpowering impulse is not a
recognized defense under English law, and it has been rejected in several cases, including R
v. Haynes (12) and R v. Burton (13). It might be challenging to embrace the irresistible urge
argument because, if it were adopted, it would eliminate all incentives for exercising self
control. Additionally, it can be challenging to distinguish between impulses that are
irresistible and those that are not. Under Section 84, the defenses of irresistible impulse and
impulsive insanity are inadmissible. The will and emotions are affected by impulsive
insanity, not the cognitive abilities. In the State of Kerala v. Ravi14 case, it was decided that
under Indian law, an accused person cannot be absolved of criminal responsibility based just
on an irresistible desire unless it can be demonstrated that the offence was the consequence of
Section 84-related insanity. In a similar vein, the court determined in Ramedin v. State of
MP15 that the admission of insanity under Section 84 would not be granted based solely on
the fact that the murder was done on an impulse.
The idea of insanity has a long history in human history. Insanity and society's battle against
it, with all of its preconceived notions and stereotypes, have existed since the beginning of
recorded history (Foerschner, 2010). The term "insanity" is broad and contentious, with
varying meanings in many domains. It lacks a clear definition and standard, therefore
depending on the situation, it might signify different things (Hari Singh Gond v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2008). Furthermore, being insane is a legal norm rather than a medical one.
Attorneys typically use the term "legal insanity." However, mental health experts would
rather refer to insanity as a mental illness (Overholser, 1954). A systemic illness known as
insanity prevents or interferes with the normal, sound use of one's mental faculties. The Latin
word "sanus," which meaning "healthy," is where the word "sane" originates. Hence, "insane"
refers to something that is not healthy, i.e., an unhealthy mind. Thus, the term "insanity" is
used to characterize different levels of mental illness. With tests like the wild beast test
(created by English courts in the 18th century in the case of R v. Arnold 2), the mad delusion
test (established in the Hadfields case), and others, the defense of insanity in criminal law has
existed since ancient times. However, the renowned M'Naghten case, in which certain
precepts known as the "M'Naghten Rules" were established, gave this tendency a clear shape.
The crucial ones were
• Until the opposite is demonstrated, all men are believed to be sane. • To establish insanity, it is
necessary to show that the accused was acting in a delusional manner that prevented him from
understanding the nature of the crime he committed, or that even if he did, he was unaware that it was
unlawful.
• It is improper to question a medical witness in court about whether they believed the accused to be
insane if they had not seen the accused prior to trial.
 INSANITY DEFENSE

A person with a mental illness may utilize the legal interpretation of insanity as an excuse to absolve
themselves of their criminal responsibility. Many people mistakenly believe that filing an insanity
defense will allow one to escape punishment for their actions, even if the insanity can be faked
(Ajmal, 2023). Regarding the frequent use of the defense of insanity in court, there is another
misconception because this defense is rarely employed and has a very low success rate (Hans, 1986).
Lack of training among pertinent parties, such as mental health specialists, attorneys, judges, and
police, is one factor contributing to the insanity defense's failure (Ajmal et al., 2022). The insanity
defense is a justification that argues the offender's mental illness was the reason for their actions
(Black's Law Dictionary, 1999). In Pakistan, section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code (1860) addresses
unsoundness of mind rather than providing a definition for the insanity defense. Therefore, there
would be no crime in the situation of a person who, due to their mental state, is unable of recognizing
what he is doing and/or is unable to regulate his behavior (Mehmood, S., & Mehmood, N., 1898).

The conditions for the insanity defense are outlined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The
definition of insanity as unsound mental state is also given in this section. According to Section 84 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian courts apply the same standards for defining insanity when
considering mental illness as in Pakistan. English criminal law also recognizes the defense of insanity
as an excuse (Pollock & Maitland, 1899). The insanity defense under McNaughten's guidelines was
integrated into the criminal laws of England and Wales. The defence of insanity against an individual's
illegal act has a lengthy history in the United Kingdom. It originated with McNaughten's guidelines
and progressed to the Insanity and Unfitness to Plead Act 1991 (Ormerod & Smith, 2021). The US has
a well-developed legal system that acknowledges the insanity defense. The insanity defense laws of
each state are discordant with one another. A few American states, including Montana, Idaho, Kansas,
and Utah, have outlawed the insanity defense and substituted alternative methods for handling
defendants with mental illnesses in the past. Nonetheless, the Model Penal Code—a model piece of
legislation—sought to harmonize state laws on the insanity defense (Neville, 2010). In criminal
jurisdictions, determining criminal culpability is a controversial topic, especially when an individual
has a mental illness (Schuessler & Cressey, 1950). There must be all the necessary components of a
crime in order to declare an act to be a crime, and there must be an illegal act with a corresponding
will since there can be no offense without an intention (Ormerod & Smith, 2021).
 THE ELEMENTS OF CRIME

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”

This Latin proverb can be literally translated as "until there is criminal intent, an act does not make
one guilty." A crime consists of two fundamental elements: mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea is the
mental component, and actus reus is the physical component. The actus reus and the mens rea must,
for the most part, occur simultaneously (Coke, 1797). However, there are several ranges and variances
of interpretation when considering the essential elements of a crime in the context of insanity and
insanity defense within the larger framework of criminal law.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS MENS REA AND INSANITY DEFENSE

According to White (2016), there is a connection between an accused person's insanity and the mens
rea of the crime. Given the developments in the disciplines of mental health and criminal law, it is
necessary to address the complex relationship between mental diseases and the elements of crime,
notably mens rea. The mens rea and insanity defense are two independent concerns, although these
are related to each other as an insane individual, in most situations, cannot claimed to possess mea rea
of a crime. Even in the most extreme circumstances, mentally ill criminals are not completely
incapable of rational reasoning, but this does not mean that they have mens rea for the crime because
their motivations could be warped ideas or views. Given the crime, the mens rea principle, and the
mental illness, it follows that a crime committed by someone who satisfies the requirements for legal
insanity does not fall within the standard definition of mea rea. An crazy person lacks the mental
capacity to be held accountable for the crimes they commit, even in strict liability cases where mens
rea is not necessary to establish guilt. The insanity of an accused is outside the concept of mens rea
because of the mental condition of the criminal (Morse & Hoffman, 2007).

A person can be released from suspected criminal culpability under the accepted and affirmative
defense of insanity in criminal law. However, establishing the individual's level of insanity has always
been a factual inquiry. A test of a person's mental capacity—that is, whether or not they could
distinguish between good and evil acts—was thought to be appropriate in order to hold a wrongdoer
criminally liable. If they passed this test, it was deemed appropriate and lawful to hold them
accountable for their crimes, but not otherwise. Determining a person's intellectual capacity was
therefore crucial to holding him accountable for actions that were illegal. Historically, a cognitive test
has been used to determine insanity. The "question" posed by this test is whether the individual's
disturbed mental state was so severe as to render them completely incapable of understanding the type
and caliber of the conduct they performed. This standard was developed at a time when psychiatric
knowledge was quite limited. However, it neglected to include an individual who, despite appearing
to have diminished cognitive abilities, was unable to regulate his behavior due to a mental health
disorder. It was believed that mental disease simultaneously affected all of the mental faculties while
this test was developing. This research paper will attempt to determine whether an accused person
was acting in a criminal manner in a way that was right or wrong by using case laws to determine
conditions of insanity. It will also attempt to determine whether an accused person is entitled to a
defense under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. A person can be released from suspected criminal
culpability under the accepted and affirmative defense of insanity in criminal law. However,
establishing the individual's level of insanity has always been a factual inquiry. A test of a person's
mental capacity—that is, whether or not they could distinguish between good and evil acts—was
thought to be appropriate in order to hold a wrongdoer criminally liable. If they passed this test, it was
deemed appropriate and lawful to hold them accountable for their crimes, but not otherwise.
Determining a person's intellectual capacity was therefore crucial to holding him accountable for
actions that were illegal. Historically, a cognitive test has been used to determine insanity. The
"question" posed by this test is whether the individual's disturbed mental state was so severe as to
render them completely incapable of understanding the type and caliber of the conduct they
performed. This standard was developed at a time when psychiatric knowledge was quite limited.
However, it neglected to include an individual who, despite appearing to have diminished cognitive
abilities, was unable to regulate his behavior due to a mental health disorder. It was believed that
mental disease simultaneously affected all of the mental faculties while this test was developing.
Expert testimony may be used to determine a person's mental health, and this testimony usually
results in divergent opinions.

Psychiatrists are upset because the law treats insanity like a distinct medical condition. Actually,
insanity is a state of mind that can be reached through a variety of medical and legal pathways rather
than a medical condition. Psychiatrists and attorneys agree that someone who is seriously emotionally
disturbed should be shielded from the repercussions of their actions, but they cannot agree on how to
come to that decision. A person is deemed legally insane if their mental condition has left them so
confused and disordered that they cannot be held accountable for their conduct, which would
otherwise be illegal. Instead of using the term "insanity" to describe such a deranged state of mind,
mental health professionals use the term "abnormality," which they interpret as referring to almost
anything from simple anxiety to dementia (which is interpreted as synonymous with gross mental
deterioration). They also use this term much more broadly than lawyers do. The illness viewpoint,
which is the foundation of medical science, aims to logically and consistently categorize all
recognized mental illnesses. The question of liability, as opposed to the nature of an individual's grief,
is what the law considers. The dominant legal standard is "Did the accused know from wrong?" rather
than "Is this a paranoid or mania?" A person who knows that an act is immoral but nevertheless
performs it compulsively out of a "irresistible impulse" is another test subject.

CONCLUSION
We must familiarize ourselves with the standards used to determine insanity in order to
understand the statute law of insanity. Stated differently, we may refer to the standards or
limitations of insanity. We can basically establish insanity using two different types of testing.
There are two types of tests: the medical test and the legal test. These two parameter settings
are not the same. Therefore, it is clear from the explanation above that Section 22 of the
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita addresses the use of insanity as a defense in criminal cases. It is only
relevant in cases where the accused establishes that, at the time of the offense, he was
mentally incompetent and hence unable to understand the nature of the act or that it was
unlawful or immoral. The accused's mental state both before and after the conduct is relevant
to determine whether or not he was insane at the time the offense was committed. Relevant
aspects include the lack of pre-arrangement, secrecy, and motivation. These elements by
themselves, though, would not be adequate. It should be mentioned that legal insanity, not
medical insanity, is the issue that the courts are dealing with.

REFERENCES

1. Criminal Jurisprudence and Law of Insanity – Monika Malhotra

2. Insanity and Criminal Law – B. K. Bhattacharya
3. Indian Penal Code
4. Bharatiya Nyaaya Sanhita