Insanity or unsoundness of mind is not defined in the act. It means a disorder of the mind, which impairs the cognitive faculty; that is, the reasoning capacity of man to such an extent as to render him incapable of understanding consequences of his actions. It means that the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of realising that the act is wrong or contrary to law it deals with insanity in tort law, contract, and ipc

1. & the law
UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND

2. Insanity or unsoundness of minds can be defined
as
disease of mind which effects the personality
mental status, critical faculties, emotional
processes
and interactions with social environment.

3. Insanity in Law
Insanity or unsoundness of mind is not defined in the act. It means a disorder of
the mind, which impairs the cognitive faculty; that is, the reasoning capacity of
man to such an extent as to render him incapable of understanding consequences
of his actions. It means that the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the
act or of realising that the act is wrong or contrary to law6
Non compos mentis (Not of Sound Mind):
There are four types of persons of unsound mind:—
(i) An idiot;
(ii) A lunatic or Insanity
(iii) A person becomes unsound mind due to illness:
Mental Decay
(iv) A person heavily drank or consumed any intoxicated
material.
(V) Hypnotism

4. IDIOCY
LUNACY
OR
INSANITY
DRUNKENNESS
MENTAL
DECAYHYPNOTISM

5. LEGAL PROVISIONS REGARDING “PERSON OF UNSOUND
MIND IN INDIA

6. • For a valid contract each
party to the contract must
have a sound mind. Contract
made by person of unsound
mind are void
Section 11
• "A person is said to be of sound
mind for the purpose of making
a contract if, at the time when he
makes it he is capable of
understanding it and of forming
a rational judgment as to its
effects upon his interest."
Section 12

7. (a) IDIOCY:
An Idiot is a person with no intervals of saneness. He is in capable.
His mental powers of understanding even ordinary matters are absent
because of lack of development of brain. The agreement with an idiot is
void.
(b) LUNACY OR INSANITY:
It is disease of brain. A lunatic loses the use of his reason due to some
mental strain or disease. He may have Lucid Intervals of sanity. He can
enter into contract during that period when he is of sound mind.
(c) DRUNKENNESS:
It produces temporary incapability till the man is under the effect of
intoxication creating impotence of mind. He stands on the same footing
as a lunatic.
(d) HYPNOTISM:
It also produce temporary incapability till the person is under the
impact of artificially induced sleep.
(e) MENTAL DECAY: It is on account of old age etc.
Note: an agreement with person of unsound mind is void. But
under Section 68, the property of such person is always liable
for necessaries supplied to him or to anyone whom he is legally
bound to support.

8.  While interpreting sec 12 of Indian Contract Act, court
held that mere weakness of mind is not unsoundness of
mind.
 Mental incapacity, arising out of any reason, deprives a
person not only of a full understanding of transaction
but also of the awareness that he does not understand it.
 A person of unsound mind is thus not necessarily a
lunatic. It is sufficient if the person is incapable of
judging the consequences of his acts.

9. Indian law has a different opinion from English law on this
issue.
English
law
• Person of unsound is competent to contract, although the
contract can be avoided at his option if he satisfies the court
that he was incapable of understanding the contract and the
other party had the knowledge of the same.
•Thus, under English law, the contract is voidable at his option.
It becomes binding on him only if he affirms it,
Indian law
A person of unsound mind when is state of
unsoundness is not competent to contract. The
agreement of a person of unsound mind is void,

10. ON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF LIES?
Section 105 Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Whether the want of capacity is temporary or permanent, natural or
supervening, whether it arises from disease, or exists from the time of
birth, it is included in the term “Unsoundness of mind.”
Every man is presumed to be sane and to possess sufficient degree
of reason to be responsible for his crime the proof of burden lies upon
the accused, until the contrary is proved,

11.  Act of a person of unsound mind:
 Act of a person of unsound mind is exempted from the
criminal liability under Section 84 of Chapter-IV (General
Exception).
 Section 84 exonerates a person of mental incapacity who
did a criminal act. To constitute guilt, a guilty mind (mens
rea) is required.
Ingredients:
 A criminal act is exempted from punishment,
 (i) if the accused is a person of unsound mind;
 (ii) if he, at the time of doing it, does not know the nature of
the act; or
 (iii) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law

12.  Section 328 – Procedure in case of accused being lunatic
 Section 329 – Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before
Court
 Section 330 – Release of person of unsound mind pending investigation or
trial
 Section 331 – Resumption of inquiry or trial
 Section 332 – Procedure on accused appearing before Magistrate or Court
 Section 333 – When accused appears to have been of sound mind
 Section 334 – Judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind
 Section 335 – Person acquitted on such ground to be detained in safe
custody
 Section 336 – Power of State Government to empower officer in charge to
discharge
 Section 337 – Procedure where lunatic prisoner is reported capable of
making his defence
 Section 338 – Procedure where lunatic detained is declared fit to be
released
 Section 339 – Delivery of lunatic to care of relative or friend

13. Hindu Law Other Personal Law
Neither party is
incapable
of giving a valid consent
as a consequence of unsoundness of mind
 if capable must not suffer from mental
disorders of such to such an extent as to be
unfit for marriage and the procreation of
children
 Must not suffer from recurrent attacks of
insanity.
Marriages in
contravention
to the provision with
respect to mental disorders is voidable
category.
Divorce or judicial
separation can be
obtained if the person has been “incurably of
unsound mind,” or has been suffering
A woman can obtain a decree of
divorce under “The Dissolution
of Muslim Marriage Act, 1959”,
if her husband has been insane
for 2 years.
A marriage is voidable if either
party is a lunatic or idiot.
Christians can obtain divorce on
grounds of unsoundness of mind
provided:
(i) It must be incurable
(ii) it must be present for at least 2
years immediately preceding the
petition.
Muslim Law
Christian Law
Section 5(ii):
Section 12
Section 13

15.  English law recognizes insanity as a
possible defence. In Arnold case, the
Court declared that the accused was
totally deprived of his understanding
and memory and did not know what
he was doing, nor more than an infant,
a brute or a wild beast.
 The Indian Law on insanity based on
the rules laid down in the Mc’ Naghten
case.

16. BRIEF FACTS
In 1843, Mac
Naughten killed
Mr. Drummond,
the Private
Secretary of Sir
Robert Peel, and
the then Prime
Minister of
England.
Mc Naughten
was under the
insane delusion
that Sir Peel
had injured
him and again
was going to
injure him.
So, one day
mistaking
Drummand for Sir
Peel, he shot and
killed him. He was
tried for murder
before Chief
Justice Tindol

17. 1.
• 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 the satisfaction of
jury.
2.
• a defect of reason from disease of the mind, unable to understand the nature and
quality of the act.
3.
•“if the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if that
act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.”
4.
• criminality must depend on the nature of the delusion.
• under partial delusion: it is considered in the same situation as to which the
delusion exists were real
5.
• A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be asked to
give his opinion as to the state of accused’s mind.
In India:
Mc Naughten’s principles have been adopted too. Section 84
contains the three important principles of them.
JUDGMENT
Some principles commonly known as
“Mc. Naughten Principles of Insanity”

18. 1.
• Should the existing provision (Section 84)
relating to the defence of insanity be modified or
expanded in any other way?
2.
• Should the test be related to the offender’s
incapacity to know that the act is wrong or to his
incapacity to know that it is punishable?
3.
• Should the defence of insanity be available in
cases where the offender, although aware of
wrongful, or even criminal nature ofhis act, is
unable to resist from doing because ofhis mental
condition?
RECOMMENDATION OF 42nd REPORT OF LAW
COMMISSION IN INDIA.

19. The Mc’ Naghten rules is based on the entirely obsolete and
misleading conception of nature of insanity
Insanity does not only affect the cognitive faculties but affects the
whole personality of the person including both the will and the
emotions
The Mc’ Naghten rules is based on the entirely obsolete and
misleading conception of nature of insanity
The present definition only looks at the cognitive and moral
aspects of the defendant's actions but ignores the irresistible
impulse
An insane person may often know the nature and quality of his
act, that law forbids it but yet commit.
The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report after considering the desirability
of introducing the test of diminished responsibility under IPC, Sec. 84 gave its
opinion in the negative due to the complicated medico-legal issue it would
introduce in trial.
CRITICS OF Mc’ Naghten Rules

20. *The appellant married in
1958. Ten months before
the incidence of the case, he
wrote a letter to his father-
in-law stating that he did
not like Kalavati(wife), take
back her.
Kaiavathi’s father agreed on
that he would take his
daughter back but not fulfil.
*On the night of 9-4-1959,
At about 3.00 a.m., Kalavati
shouted that her husband
was beating, stabbing and
cried to protect her.
*The neighbours collected
and called the accused. The
accused came out. Kalavati
was found dead with a
number of wounds. In the
trial the accused took the
plea of insanity.
The Sessions Judge did
not believe the evidence
of insanity and convicted
the accused with rigorous
imprisonment for life
under Sec. 302.
On appeal the High Court
upheld the conviction.
The appellant appealed to
the Supreme Court.
Dahyabhai Chhaganbai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat
(AIR 1964 SC 1563)
Brief Facts

21. 1.
•The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea.
the burden of proving always rests on the prosecution from the
beginning to the end of the trial.
2.
•Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane
at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by
the accused or by prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
Court as regards one or more of ingredients of the offence .
3.
• the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that
the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not
discharged.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court summarised the principles of the plea of insanity the in the
context of Burden of Proof:

22. FACTS :
The accused’s mother
had some money. The
accused had been
quarrelling with his
mother for money. He
threatened his mother to
kill her. His sister
intervened. He became
annoyed and killed her
with an axe, later
absconded from the
village for three
months.
Cont…
He was found doing
labour work in the
neighbour village. On
prosecution, the accused
took the plea of
insanity. He produced
the evidence that prior
to the incidence, he
suffered with mental
derangement.
JUDGMENT:
The Court did not
accept the defence
under Section 84.
The Court opined
that the accused was
not insane at the
time of the wrongful
act.
Ashok Dattatraya vs. State of Maharashtra
(1993 CrLJ 3450 Bom)

23. The appellant S.K. Nair
was charged for
committing murder of
Naik B. Chowdhury
and causing injuries
with a khukri (Nepalese
dagger) to two others
The deceased woke up
& found S.K. Nair with
khukri.
The deceased
questioned for it and
instructed the appellant
to keep away khukri,
else he complain
The appellant became
annoyed and retorted
that he would be
produced before the
officials
Saying so, the accused
started inflicting
khukri blows.
Joga Singh, driver and
Kashyap intervened
but they also suffered
injuries.
In defence, :
1. The accused was
suffering with permanent
Paranoia and was
incapable of understanding
the commission of offence.
2. A paranoid within
moments may completely
loose his normal frame of
mind and be seized of
special emotions thereby
impelled to behave wildly
and such sudden fit of
emotion may also vanish
within moments.
S.K. Nair vs. State of Punjab (SC 1997 SCC 141)
Brief
Facts

24. JUDGMENT:
On appeal, the
Supreme
Court
confirmed the
conviction, and
did not accept
the defence of
insanity,
Held:
Being a paranoid; the
appellant must be presumed
to have committed the said
offences being seized of
sudden impulsive fits of
passion due to which
temporarily he was
completely incapable of
understanding the
implication of his activities
Even if it is assumed that
paranoid is likely to be seized
of sudden bouts of impulsive
fits such sudden bouts may also
disappear within a very short
time, and it was not happen in
this case.
Held that the appellant did not
completely loose his sense of
understanding.

25.  The Indian Law on insanity is based on the rules laid down in
the Mc’Naghten case.
 However, the Mc’Naghten rules have become obsolete and are
not proper and suitable in the modern era.
 The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report after
considering the desirability of introducing the test of diminished
responsibility under IPC, s. 84 gave its opinion in the negative
due to the complicated medico-legal issue it would introduce in
trial.
 There are three compartments of the mind – controlling
cognition, emotion and will. IPC, s. 84 only exempts one whose
cognitive faculties are affected.
 The Courts must also adopt a broader view of the Insanity and
introduce the concept of diminished responsibility.