Insanity and Criminal Liability

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.

Nature and sources of law

Law maybe defined as a set of rules governing human conduct. It has been regarded as a divinely ordained rule or tradition of old customs or a code or system of rules imposed upon man by the society. Austin defined law as a command of sovereign backed by sanction while Savigny defined it in terms of popular consciousness. Justice Holmes defined it as a judicial process. But neither of the definition is complete because law is not dependent upon a supreme authority to proclaim it to get its authority as Austin proclaimed, customary law is well established. Similarly, customs alone do not originate law, it is dynamic in nature. Further, law is not dependent upon courts to declare its validity; it can exist without that as well.

Austin separated law as ‘it is’ from law as ‘it ought to be’. He separated it from morality. However, law cannot be completely separated from morality. It cannot be devoid of the popular consciousness. The natural law school, having sages and priests as its principal exponents, defines law as a Divine command and it consists entirely of positive morality.

However, law is a combination of positive morality, it needs to be accepted by the popular notion of the society, and it needs some sanction and should be recognized in the court of law as not being against public policy. It is a dynamic body that adapts itself according to the needs of society while not changing so fast so as to make life difficult. Neither should it be so static that it stifles life.

The Sociological school studies law in terms of its ends or functions. The purpose of law is to bring about social order. Law seeks to bring harmony and order in the society and is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Thus, law is a body of rules guiding the human conduct in a society. Its purpose is to bring about social order. Law is not only based on the preconceived notions of good but is also dynamic enough to adapt according to the needs of the society.

Sources of law

                The term ‘source’ means the place or point from which something springs out or originates. The source of law maybe defined as the historical fact out of which the rules of human conduct originate and acquire obligatory characteristics. Three main sources of law have been universally recognized and they are; custom, legislation and judicial precedent.

(1)    Custom: customs are an important source of law with various personal laws being largely dependent upon the same. The Historical School of Law considers customs as the true source of law. However, to gain validity as a law, customs need to fulfill certain conditions such as:

(a)    Antiquity

(b)   Reasonableness

(c)    Exercised as of Right

(d)   Not opposed to statutory law

(e)   Not immoral

(f)     Not by analogy

(2)    Legislation: legislation or law making process is the formal process of creating new legal norm, by a formal and express declaration by some authority which is recognized by the courts of law as adequate for the purpose. According to Sir Henry Maine, legislation is the last agency of social reform. Legislation maybe supreme or subordinate depending upon the body laying down the rules.

(3)    Judicial precedent: judicial precedents are the former judgements of the superior courts that are binding upon the subordinate judiciary in subsequent cases based on the similar act or circumstance.