Skip to main content

Insanity (Section 84)

 Insanity (Sec-84)

Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as,
“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 what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law”

The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton.

In R V

Mc. Naughten


Facts:

Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel.

He was tried for murder.
On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect.

Judgment:
The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity.

Mc. Naughten Principles of Insanity:

1) Unless the contrary is proved, every man is of sound mind and he knows that he is responsible for his crime.

page1image3578551504 page1image3578551792

  1. 2)  To plead the defense of insanity, the accused has to prove that, at the time of committing the act, he was suffering a disease of mind.

  2. 3)  If the accused was conscious at the time of the act, he is punishable.

  3. 4)  The accused is not punishable, if he kills a person in a suspicion that the

    person was attempting to kill him.
    The accused is punishable, if he kills a person in a suspicion that the person was attempting to do serious injury.

  4. 5)  A medical witness, who has not seen the accused before the trial should not be asked to give his opinion on the accused mind.

    Ingredients:

Insanity or unsoundness of mind itself is not a defense.

To plead Insanity as a defense, the following conditions has to be satisfied, they are:

  1. 1)  The accused is of unsound mind.

  2. 2)  that he does not know the nature of the act he was doing

  3. 3)  that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law

  4. 4)  Burden of Proof is on the shoulders of the accused to plead the defense of

    insanity.

    Types of Insanity:

  1. 1)  Lunatic

  2. 2)  Idiot

  3. 3)  One due to disease and

  4. 4)  Drunken or intoxicated person.

In Veluswamy V

State
In this case, the accused killed his father with a grinding stone because he refused

to give him the money.
The court denied the defense of Insanity on the grounds that the accused was in full sense while committing the offence.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOT, AFFRAY

Unlawful Assembly (Section 141): Unlawful assembly is an assembly of 5 or more persons with the common object: 1)  to over-throw by criminal force the Government or the legislature or 2)  To resist the execution of any legal process 3)  To commit mischief (Sec-425), criminal trespass (441) 4)  To obtain property or right by criminal force or 5)  To criminally force a person to do an act which he is not bound to do, or to force him not to do an act which he is bound to do. If a person is a member of an unlawful assembly then that person is punishable. An assembly which is not unlawful in the beginning may become unlawful subsequently. The purpose or common object decides the nature of the assembly. Essentials: 1)  The essentials are that there should be five or more persons and there should be the common object as specified in Sec-141. 2)  This is different from common intention in Sec-34. For unlawful assembly prior meeting of minds is not essential. 3...
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more