Insanity Defense: Balancing Justice and Mental Health
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm2025.v05.n01.010Keywords:
Cognitive Incapacity, Expert testimony, Filicide, Forensic Psychiatry, HallucinationAbstract
The insanity defense sits at a tricky crossroads between law and mental health, where the legal system's focus on free will clashes with medicine's broader view of mental illness. While many countries have updated their laws to reflect modern psychiatric insights, India still relies on an outdated legal definition, leading to inconsistent court rulings. This study pushes for a reformed legal framework in India that embraces current medical understanding and aligns with global standards. By bridging this gap, the authors aim to create a fairer system that balances justice with compassion for those grappling with mental health challenges.
References
Gabrial Hallevy, “The Matrix of Insanity in Modern Criminal Law” 18 (Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2015).
K I Vibhute (eds), PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (Tenth Edition Lexis NexisButterworths 2008) 137; “Insanity or mental abnormality is one of the general exceptions to criminal liability recognized by the IPC. This is based on the principle of mens rea as discussed earlier. By virtue of the maxim ‘actusreus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea’, an act forbidden by law is not punishable if it is unaccompanied by a guilty mind.”
7 S.C.R. 917
AIR 2009 SC 31, (2008) (India)
L. Vernon Briggs, “Medico-Legal Insanity and the Hypothetical Question” 14(1) Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 62 (1923).
CriLJ 494.
(1969) 71 BOMLR 643.
DahyabhaiChhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujurat AIR 1964 SC 1563; “When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed.”
Geron Ali v Emperor AIR 1941 Cal 129; “The section however does not stop there. It goes on to deal with another type of insanity which would also take away from the criminality of an act. It says that if a person does an act and at the time of doing the act by reason of insanity does not know that the act is either wrong or contrary to law then also he would be protected even though he knew the nature of the act. This is perfectly clear from the section and it is nothing but sound common sense.”
R. v Windle (1952) 2 Q.B. 826; “In the M’Naghten Rules ‘wrong’ means contrary to law and not ‘wrong’ according to the opinion of one man or a number of people on the question whether a particular act might or might not be justified.”
3 S.C.R.
R v Arnold (1724) 16 St. Tr. 695; “If he was under the visitation of God and could not distinguish between good and evil, and did not know what he did, though he committed the greatest offence, yet he could not be guilty of any offence against any law whatsoever. On the other side, we must be very cautious, it is not every kind of frantic humor, or something unaccountable in a man’s action, that points him out to be such a mad man as is exempted from punishment; it must be a man that is totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a brute or wild beast. Such a one is never the object of punishment.”
(1800) 27 St. Tr. 128
(1812) 1 Collinson Lunacy 673
All ER Rep 229
Law Commission, CRIMINAL LIABILITY: INSANITY AND AUTOMATISM A DISCUSSION PAPER (2013).
Durham v U.S. (1954) 214 D. 2d 862; “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
