The law of crimes provides that actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, that is, an act is not a crime if it is done without an intention to cause harm. A guilty mind or a guilty intention forms the basis of criminal liability. A person who is not sane does not know what he is doing. An act committed by him during the course of his lunacy cannot be treated at par with a pre-meditated crime, as he lacks intention. Intent to commit crime is an essential element of crime as well as an important stage of crime and a person having delusions or having irrational thoughts cannot be said to be capable of forming an intent to commit a crime. Though insanity has not been defined in law four types of people are recognized as insane:
(1) an idiot – an idiot is one who from birth had defective mental capacity. This infirmity in him is perpetual without lucid intervals;
(2) one made so by illness – by illness, a person is made non compos mentis. He is therefore excused in case of criminal liability, which he acts under the influence of this disorder;
(3) a lunatic or a madman – lunatics are those who become insane and whose incapacity might be or was temporary or intermittent. A lunatic is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain period and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason; and
(4) one who is drunk – this is covered under IPC, s. 85.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not consider an act committed by a lunatic as a crime if it is committed during the period of lunacy. The same is applicable in cases of forced intoxication.
Section 84. 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.
McNaughton’s rule states that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming the defense of lunacy; that he was not in fit mental capacity at the time of committing the crime.
The accused is protected not only when, on the account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either the act was wrong or it was contrary to the law. He is however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to the nature of the law or vice versa.
Section 85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.--Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Section 86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.--In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Under the provisions of the Code, an intoxicated person is treated in the same way a lunatic is treated, provided that such intoxication has not been delivered voluntarily. However, such a defense cannot be succeeded in cases of voluntary intoxication.
Thus, in cases of where insanity has been pleaded as a defense and successfully proved, the person is absolved of criminal liability.
No comments:
Post a Comment