How Psychology can be used in courtroom?

2. WRITTEN BY SABRIN PHILIP
Volunteer of Applied Forensic Research
Sciences

3. • HISTORYOFINSANITYASDEFENCEINLAW
• SECTION84IPC
• HISTORYOFINSANITYASDEFENCEINLAW
• DEFENCEOFINSANITYINCOURT
• MEDICALINSANITYVSLEGALINSANITY
• ROLEOFFORENSICPSYCHIATRISTS/PSYCHOLOGISTS
• REALCASEEXAMPLES

4. • In 1843, Daniel Mc Naughten, a wood-turner from Glasgow, shot and killed Edward Drummond
mistakinghimforSirRobertPeel. But hisstateofmindwasapparent from theoutsetwhenhe
had to be coaxed, and finally tricked, into pleading “not guilty.” After 7 medical witnesses
testified that he was completely insane, the judge stopped the trial, the jury brought in the
special verdict. Mc Naughten was admitted to the Bethlehem Hospital. Ever since, five
propositions weredrawnwhicharereferred toasMcNaughten’srule.
• This rules then turned out to be the start for the law concerned with defense of insanity, in
Indiatoo,whichisbasedon McNaughten’sRule.

5. Section84ofIPCdealswiththe“actofaperson ofunsoundmind.”Anditstates-
“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
eitherwrongorcontrarytolaw.”
For the sake of easy understanding, the Section 84 IPC can be divided into two categories of,
major criteria ( mental illness) and minor criteria (loss of reasoning ). Both major and minor
criteria'srepresent legalinsanity.
Majorcriteria meansthepersonmustbesufferingfrommentalillness duringthecommissionof
act.Minorcriteriameantheperson is:
• Incapabletounderstandthenatureoftheact
• Incapabletounderstandhisactiswrongor
• Incapabletounderstanditiscontrarytolaw.

6. • Section84IPC,clearlyincludes fundamentalmaximofcriminallawsthatis,
(a) “Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea” (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a
guiltyintention) and
(b) “Furiosi nulla voluntas est” (a person with mental illness has no free will). This means that an
actdoesnotconstituteacrimeunlessitisdonewithaguiltyintention called“mensrea“
• Therefore,Section 84IPCrelies liabilityonpeoplewith mentallychallengedbecausetheycan
havenoguiltyknowledgeorthe guiltyintentions.

7. Today's criminal laws are primarily based on the notion that people are morally accountable and not
damage causingagents.
To be held criminally responsible, some factors needs to be proven such as the person committed the act in
doing so,theperson actedwithhisorherownfreewill,deliberatelyandforrational reasons.
• Psychiatrists can be requested to help the court in figuring out whether or not certain mental issues
affecteda individual's capacity to formtheintentnecessaryto makethat individual legallyculpable.
In Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a person of an unsound mind shall act- Nothing is an offence
committed by someone who is currently unable to. For this defense, the following elements are to be
established-
• Theaccusedwas ina state ofunsoundnessofmindat thetimeofthe act.
• Hewas unableto knowthe natureofthe actordowhat was eitherwrongorcontraryto thelaw.
• The legal conception of insanity differs significantly from medical conception. Not every form of insanity
ormadnessisrecognizedasasufficientexcusebylaw.

8. • Medicalinsanity
Medicalinsanitydoesn’timplyapersonismadorcrazy.It’sapproachformostofthetimeisthatthe
individual is on medicines or under session with a psychiatrist or therapist but are capable of
makingintellectualdecisions andcan leadanormallife.
• Legalinsanity
It is a scenario wherein someone needs to be placed under direct supervision having no decision
making capabilities in matters associated with finances or else and another person has to take
theirduty.
In general , legal insanity means, on the time of the commission of the act, the person ought to be
suffering frommentalillnessandalsohavealackofreasoning power.

9. • Standard Evaluation Procedures are carried out by them, when ordered by the
court, for the defense of insanity. The procedure which includes various
assessments, treatments and reports/certifications are prepared by them for
theadmissibilityinthecourt.
• Forensic psychiatrists evaluate and analyses the presencethe or absence of
mentalillnessinaperson, requestedfordefenseininsanity.
• The forensic psychiatrists/psychologists are called upon as experts for expert
opinions, incase of any doubts by the court. Where they as experts have to put
forward their knowledge based observations in front of the court, clarify
psychiatric problems and provide an honest and clarified opinion based on
strongdata’sandaccuratereasoning.

10. • KamalaBhuniyav.WestBengalState
The accusedwas in trial for her husband’s murder with an axe. A case was
filed against the accused, stating she allegedly was insane at the time of
commitment of the crime and it was recorded by the investigating officer
at the initial stages of investigations. The prosecution arranged for the
accused’s medical examination and it was held that there was no motive
for murder. As the accused made no attempts to flee, nor made any
attempttoremovethe weaponused.
Therefore, the accused was entitled to benefit from Section 84. Hence, she
was proved insane at the time of the commission of the offence and was
heldguiltyofCulpableHomicideandnot ofMurder.

11. • ShrikantAnandraoBhosalev.StateofMaharashtra
In this case, the accused was a police constable. The wife was smacked on the head with a
grinding stone by the accused, and she was immediately taken to the hospital but was found
already dead. After the investigation, the accused was charged for the offence of murder.
Insanitywaspleadedasadefense.
The accused had a family history, where his father also suffered from some mental illness. The
reason was not known. The appellant was undergoing treatment for his mental illness. Thus, it
was declared that the motive for the murder was quite weak. After killing his wife, the accused
didnotattempttohideorrunaway.
Based on the above-stated facts, it was held that the accused was suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia, and he was incapable of justifying the nature of the act committed by him.
Therefore, hewasfoundtobenotguiltyofthemurderandwasgiventhebenefitofsection84,IPC.

12. Q.Whatisactusreaandmensrea??
A) GUILTYMINDANDGUILTYSOUL
B) GUILTYMINDANDGUILTYACT
C) GUILTYACTANDGUILTYMIND
D) GUILTYKNOWLEDGEANDGUILTYACT