Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that “Act of a person of unsound mind-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law”. This means that if a person is suffering from serious mental disease or is of unsound mind at the time of committing offence, then he was free from criminal liability. In this case burden of proof lies on the accused. When such defect is caused by some disease of mind, a person is said to be insane.
R. v. Arnold 1724, this case is one of the important and historical case of this section. According to this case if a person could not distinguish between good and evil and he did not know nature of the act yet he pleaded insanity in his defense.
M’NAGHTEN RULES: - Daniel M’Naghten was tried for the murder of private secretary of Robert Peel (P.M.). During his insanity he killed Sir Robert Peel. According to the evidence he was lost his power of control. The accused was acquitted on the ground of insanity. His acquittal was become the subject od debate in the House of Lords. The question and answer of debate are also known as M’Naghten Rule.
Essential elements of this Section: -
Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.
Such person must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
Act was wrong or contrary to law.
Incapacity must be reason of unsoundness of mind.
Incapacity of nature must exit at the time of doing act.
A man who by reason of unsoundness of mind or insanity lost his power of control caused any offence he was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Code. This statement was said in the case of Hakim shah, 1887.
The accused was unable to differentiate between right and wrong even if he did not know that it was contrary to law or the (visa versa). The unsoundness of mind must be exist at the time of commission of such offence and the burden of proof of unsoundness of mind is on the accused (Geron Ali, 1940).
In Srikant Anand Rao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, 2002, insanity of the appellant at the time of the commission of crime was pleaded in his defense. A accused suffering from mental disease and was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The accused was under regular treatment of mental disease. Unsoundness of mind before and after the incident would be relevant fact to same appellant. He was under an attack of mental ailment. Thus, he (appellant) was entitled for the benefit of section 84 of the Code.
Types of unsound mind : -
Idiot-who is of non-sane memory form his birth.
Lunatic- mental disorder only at certain period.
Non-compos- illness is exempted from criminal liability.
Drunkenness- voluntary drunkenness is no excuse.
Legal Inanity : -
In Tabu Chetia v. State of Assam, 1976 the meaning of unsoundness of mind is unable to knowing the nature of the act or incapable of knowing that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Legal insanity is a good defense.
In case of Someshwar Bora v. State of Assam, 1981, the accused was not entitled for the benefit of this section of the Code because he left the place of murder immediately after committing the crime and remembered clearly. Accused was knowing the nature of the act before committing the crime.
DURHUM RULE: - In Durhum v. United States , the accused was charged of house breaking and he pleaded insanity of his defense. The accused was suffering from mental disease at the time of committing the act. He would be responsible for the unlawful and if there is no casual connection between such mental disorder and the act. This rule means there must be a casual relationship between the mental disorder and the act.
No comments:
Post a Comment