Defence on Insanity – SHEO NARAIN LEGUM

DEFENCE OF INSANITY –AS A LOOPHOLE AND BREAKAGE IN FAIR JUSTICE

DELIVERY SYSTEM

RIDDHI SHARMA

(FINAL YEAR STUDENT PURSUING B.B.A.LLB)

Chanderprabhu Jain College Of Higher Studies & School Of Law,

Affiliated To Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Dwarka , New Delhi, India

ABSTRACT

Insanity defence is basically used in criminal prosecution. It is perceived as a condition of severe mental illness of a person whereby he is unable to judge the immediate consequences of his acts which he undertakes at such time, therefore law does ‘not make him responsible for his acts done at the instance of such mentally imbalanced state. This responsibility in law is associated to liability for punishment for the criminal act done. But in modern and progressive societies , man is seen as a free person , and he can be held liable only for those acts which he does it with his own wish and a free will. This article critically analyses this concept of insanity in law and how it is sooner or later becoming a hindrance in the Justice Delivery System.

THE FINE LINES OF DEFENCE OF INSANITY

Since we all know that law has a capacity to hold a person guilty of an offence which he /she has done with his/her own wish and with a free will. Criminal law has a basis on the principle of “ Actus Non Facit Ream Nisi Mens Sit Rea’’ meaning that alone the physical act does not make a person liable, the mental capacity in the form of evil intent is a significant factor or the commission of a crime. And it is practical even because how can we punish a person without his evil intentions. Another principle “ Furiosi nulla voluntas est ’’ which says that a person with mental illness has no free will . So all these principles are well justified but today there is a need to protect the misuse and overuse of defences and to critically differentiate between wrong and right claims in the name of defences, so for that purpose a radical alteration is required as per the progressive times.

ANALYSIS OF A MISUSE

After so many years itself, since our independence in 1947, we are having so many strict laws, multiple people try to use this defence as a great loophole and breakage of smooth justice delivery system by faking the certificates or corrupting the judiciary itself with their evil ideas. Since its great misuse is around the corner without any prohibition, many nations including Germany, Argentina & Thailand have abolished it. But in country like India this task is hell difficult because of its large populous diversity and a large number of significant claims, its critical examination and analyses is desired before altering, enhancing and eradicating it.

India can also re examine its modern day acceptability and the valid need of such defence or if it is not possible enough to completely remove it so there are more possible chances to implement the present defence with more stringent conditions. Mental illness is not something which is to and fro but it should definitely showcase a standstill in a person ‘s mental behaviour for an existing and extended time frame. A test will be justified if a check from the immediate neighbours, , co-workers , colleagues has been formed.

INSANITY DEFENCE – A SHIELD TO PROTECT OR A SWORD TO ATTACK OR HARM

The ongoing debate focusses mainly on the inefficiency in addressing the cry of the society for fairness and justice. The defence is essentially a shield to protect this deprived class of people who loose self-control when they are surrounded by their mental deficiency. However, a change in societal dynamics and behavioural patterns suggests multiple challenges to a fair utilization of this defence. Though this defence is majorly an obedient helping hand for mentally disabled persons, but many times it serves to cater the ill interests of brute criminals who use it as a means to escape conviction and punishment.

Section 84 of IPC, 1860 which caters this defence is the large replica of Mc ‘ Naughten Rules (1843) even when the country of its origin had brought in significant alterations since the inception of the rules, and though by disrespecting this privileged defence this plea is also abused by sane persons.

Proving insanity is not an easy task and it takes a lot muc time to satisfy the mind of judges that the person is suffering from unsoundness of mind which causes serious delay in justice delivery system.

There are essentially multiple advantages of the defence of insanity but today they all are in a way overriding the impactful and needful requirements for which this defence was brought into operation. Let us discuss them one by one :-

1. Clear outlook on absence of Guilt

To bring this offence into operation, there has to be an admission as to the commission of the offence but that too without mens rea or guilty mind, the basic requirement here is to establish that the defendant is being innocent owing to his mental status. There has been a progressive notion among societies that we need not to punish a person who is not known of the difference between right and wrong. So, the trial here mostly revolves around in determining the guilt of the defendant and his /her state of mind when the offence was committed rather on to actual case and facts.

2. Prevention from any sort of Punishment sophisticatedly Death Penalty

As we all know, that once the defence of insanity has been proved, the defendant would not be liable for any kind of punishment simple or rigorous, harsh and grave considering the severity of his /her offence, the death penalty will be prevented even if he was guilty of the most heinous crime. He can be even sent to psychiatric centre to get well and can be released after his stay.

3. Insanity a Life – Saving Pill

If a person, in reality is mentally unstable, then that will be his imbalanced medical condition which made him commit the crime and definitely not his evil intentions which means that this defence can save his /her life in all possible means and ways. It is a well known fact for everybody that capital crimes carries a punishment of eventual and spontaneous death penalties. But on the note of not being found guilty because of insanity means that the death penalty has no role to play irrespective and even when the crime was so serious and the victim is or was traumatised and the victim’s family waits for justice. It is an irony of our Judicial systems that we are leaving the accused to streets again with a dangerous purpose against humanity.

Disadvantages

1. Expensive

The claim to this defence is often considered to as costly as the overall cost of the trial is increased. It further requires the employment of doctors and specialists to evaluate the mental condition of the defendant. However, statistics suggests that only 25 % of the insanity defences have been successful, which clearly suggests that majority of people are found to be able to stand to the trial, even if they try to use the plea of insanity.

2. Difficult to Prove

Because of the grave misuse of the defence of insanity, the judges, juries and prosecutors are more aware and careful towards it. The insanity of a person is difficult to prove since the seriousness of the crime while committing it is endorsed to the third parties or experts. Even after pleading this defence with proofs, it is ultimately with the judge upto the judge to accept or reject this defence of insanity.

3. Relief is not Guaranteed

If the mentally unstable accused stays in a psychiatric facility, being uncaged from a prison is not permanent as he would have all the possibilities for a healthy cure and then sentenced as a healthy and normal being.