SECTION 84 IPC (FOR TRIAL AND PROSECUTING MENTALLY ILL PERSON)

PATEL DEVANSH
17LL4(a)

dealing with the criminal responsibility of mentally ill persons in

india.
This law is based on Mc Naughten Rules enacted in England.

be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason

to be responsible for his criminal acts, unless contrary is proved to satisfaction of court.

brought forward by defence to save his client from capital

punishment.
Case is to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and then only plea of unsoundness of mind is entertained.

defence can prove that accused was of unsound mind at

the time of committing the offence-then his responsibility diminishes.

1843 in England.
Mr. Daniel Mc Naughten, killed Mr. Edmund

Drummond; private secretary of British Prime Minister Mr. Robert Peel in mistake for later.
It was shown that Mc Naughten transected a business shortly before act and had shown no signs of insanity. Defence put forth plea of insanity and accused was acquitted.

of Lords.
From answers given some rules were framed towards

determination 'of criminal responsibility of insane and were called Mc Naughten rules.

Penal Code, which says:
"nothing is an offence which

is done by a person who, at time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing nature of act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law“.

is not enough.
It should be clearly proved that: Unsoundness

of mind existed at time of offence. Unsoundness was of such a degree which rendered him incapable of knowing nature of act.
Even if he' knew nature of act he did not know that it was wrong or against law.

used to describe only those conditions that affect cognitive capacity

of an individual. So, every person who is mentally ill is not relieved from his responsibilities. Here law makes distinction between medical and legal insanity.
Law recognizes only those conditions as insanity which impairs cognitive faculties of mind.

It is another requirement under law. It is only

presence of insanity at time of act which matters and not before or after that.
If insanity exists at time of trial it can only lead to postponement of trial but not to acquittal of accused.

know nature of act he was committing or similarly, if

he knew nature of act but-did not know whether it was wrong or contrary to law he is not liable.
If person did not know nature of act but knew that it is wrong as contrary to law he is held responsible. If evidence shows that accused was conscious of nature of act, he must be presumed to have been conscious of its criminality."

State on 28 November, 1967.
Digendra a mentally retarded attempted to

kill his wife and two children with a sharp knife, when he was not able to get money which he gave to his father as a loan. He assaulted the three because his stepmother told him that if he could not feed his kids he should kill them and being so told he did it.

But was held insane while committing the offence and was

acquitted.
The court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years with rehabilitation.

sent to prison, psychiatric hospital, any other place of safe

custody or he may be acquitted.
Concept behind this provision is that as such this person was not in complete control of mind at time of offence so he should not be punished. Moreover, he need not be punished as punishment is already given to him by nature.'