Dear readers, welcome to all of you. In this article we will study in detail about the Defense Of Mental Incapacity Under IPC. Nowadays, many people are involved in some crime and hence they present many different irrelevant facts and evidence in the court. They keep trying to save themselves in any way, one of these ways is mental incapacity. Today I will tell you about the defense of mental incapacity step by step.
Mental Incapacity Under IPC Mens rea is an essential element for criminal liability. For the development of mens rea, it is necessary for the brain to be capable. Therefore, if a person has committed an act due to mental incompetence, he will not be held criminally liable for that act due to lack of malicious intent.
Mental state is often determined objectively based on the work performed. Therefore, when the act of a person shows that it was done with malice, the burden of proof of mental incapacity to deny malice lies on the person who wants to defend on this basis. Generally every person is considered to have a capable mentality and mental disability is a special fact. Therefore, the burden of proving it is on the accused. Section 105 (IEA) Indian Evidence Act 1872
What Is Mental Incapacity
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), “mental incapacity” is primarily mentioned in Section 84. According to this section, if a person is mentally unsound at the time of committing a crime and does not have the capacity to understand what he is doing or what will be the consequences, then he cannot be held liable for that crime.
Mental Incapacity Definition Legal
Section 84 says: “Whoever does any act which, due to insanity, is unable to understand what he is doing, or does not know that the act is wrong or contrary to law, shall not be liable for the offence.”*
The main purpose of this section is to ensure that a mentally unsound person, who is unable to understand the consequences of his actions, gets proper protection in the judicial process.
What Causes Mental Incapacity
Mental incompetence occurs due to following three reasons –
- 1. Childhoodness
- 2. Intoxication and
- 3. insanity.
READ MORE
A Childhoodness Article 82 IPC and 83 Ipc
In his infancy, man does not have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, nor does he have knowledge of law, hence any act done by a child of 7 years of age is not a crime. The accused being within this age limit is a Conclusive Proof of his not being a criminal. The defense only has to prove that the accused was less than 7 years of age at the time of the act.
According to the law, a child above 7 years of age is partially intelligent, hence the action done by him can be considered as malicious on the basis of facts.
According to section 83, to get defense, the defense party has to prove that-
- At the time of committing the alleged act, the age of the accused was more than 7 years but less than 12 years.
- Due to his age, he was unable to understand the nature and consequences of his work at that time.
The maturity of understanding of a child of this age is determined on the basis of facts.
In India, in most sexual matters where the child has participated voluntarily, such a child is considered mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act.
In English law, the age of childhood is 10 years and 14 years. Their children up to 14 years of age are considered incapable of committing sexual crimes.
Unsoundness Of Mind Section-84 IPC
Unsoundness Of Mind A person has a mental disability. When this happens, such a person becomes deprived of the ability to think and understand. Therefore, his actions are only his physical actions and not physical actions involving mental capacity, whereas for the criminal element it is necessary that a person perform any action involving a mental element, hence Unsoundness Of Mind provides protection from criminal liability.
Necessary elements related to its protection are provided in Section 84. For which the defense has to prove that
First- the accused was of unsound mind,
Second- he committed the alleged offense while under unsound mind,,
Third- That the effect of the unsound of mind was that the accused-
- The result of one’s work and nature or
- Was unable to know the legal effect of the act.
Thus, it is clear from the above elements that every insanity is not an exception to criminal liability because its defense depends on its seriousness. Furthermore, a person who suffers from periodic fits of insanity will be able to avail the defense only if his act was committed during the fit of insanity. Those who are born Idiot always get its protection. Sometimes a person’s insanity is of such a degree that it renders him incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of some acts, while it does not produce such incapacity in respect of others.
In such a situation, he gets protection only for that act which he is unable to understand.
In fact, insanity makes a person like an animal and hence he is made criminally liable.
R vs Arnold In 1724, a test for the defense of insanity was established which is known as the Wild Beast Test. Inability to differentiate between right and wrong was approved in this training by Lord Ferrier, 1760
In 1800, the insane delusion test was passed in the Hadfield case, which stated that the defense of insane delusion would be available only if it was so serious as to overwhelm the human being’s capacity for inference.
In 1812, in the case of Bowler, a test for the ability to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate was propounded, which remained prevalent until insane delusion test was propounded in 1843.
McNaughten’s theory
A bench of 15 judges of the House of Lords propounded a certain principle for the defense of unsound mind, which is as follows:
1. Even if the accused committed the criminal act under the influence of unsound mind to fulfill some fictitious purpose, still he will not be protected if he knew at the time of committing the act that his act was against the law.
2. It will be necessary for the court that unless it is proved that every person is of sound mind, the burden of proof will be on the defense side.
3. If the accused personally knew that the act was something which he should not do, then it will be considered that he knew that the act was illegal.
4. If the accused is suffering from delusion, his liability will be determined according to the circumstances imagined by him and not according to the actual circumstances.
5. An opinion cannot be sought from a doctor who has never seen the accused before the crime about the mental state of the accused at the time of committing the crime, i.e. there is a difference between medical unsoundness of mind and legal unsoundness of mind.
the Integration of self
Proponents of the Integration of self – Hall, Jerome, Stephen
Even when a person becomes unable to control himself due to mental illness, he should be protected against unsoundness of mind.
durham vs USA theory
The Court held that the defense of unsoundness of mind would not be that the accused was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of committing the act in question, but it would also be necessary to prove that there was a connection between such disease or defect and the criminal act. Thus, in Durham’s law, along with accepting the Memack Norton principle, the law of remote impulse was also accepted.
Defense of involuntary Intoxication – Section 85 IPC
Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, while doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrongful or contrary to law, provided that The thing by which he became intoxicated was given to him without his knowledge or against his will
To seek immunity from criminal liability under Section 85, the accused must establish that-
1. Due to intoxication while working, he was unable to understand that-
(a) the nature of the work, or
(b) That whatever he was doing was wrongful or illegal and
2. That the thing which permitted him was given to him either with his knowledge or against his will. D.P.P. vs. Beed, 1920 S.C.
Defense of voluntary Intoxication Section 86 IPC
Provided that where no act is an offense, unless it be done with any special knowledge or intention, any person who does that act while intoxicated shall be liable to be treated as if he The knowledge was the same as he would have had he not been drunk, unless the thing which caused the intoxication had been given against his knowledge or will. R vs Lipman, 1970 S.C.
Voluntary intoxication is a defense against crimes constituted by mere knowledge. Knowledge is such a mental state, which if not used properly makes a person liable. When a person, by his own action, deprives himself of the ability to use knowledge, it is considered that he had knowledge and he does not have the defense of being deprived of knowledge. D.P.P. vs. Beard; Vasudev vs. State of Pepsu,1956 S.C.
Thus, voluntary intoxication is not a defense for crimes like murder, manslaughter, adultery, whereas it is a defense for crimes like theft, fraud, miscarriage of justice, treason etc. for the formation of which ‘intention’ is an essential element. It is based on the assumption that intention is an active product of the brain, for which the brain must be active. Intoxication blocks the brain’s ability to form intentions, either voluntary or involuntary. Due to which a drunk person, while acting under the influence of alcohol, does not have the intention which gives rise to criminal liability.
Vasudev vs Pepsu State 1956 S.C In a wedding procession, a drunk man asked a boy to move from his chair and when he did not agree, he shot the boy. He was found guilty of murder.
It is important that only murder of the fourth kind and manslaughter of the third kind can be committed in a state of voluntary intoxication.
Conclusion-Defense Of Mental Incapacity Under IPC
The defence of mental incapacity in IPC plays an important role in acting as a balanced bridge between justice and fairness. It also ensures that those incapacitated persons who are unable to fully understand their actions due to mental incapacity are treated fairly. This defence should be used very carefully to prevent various types of abuses. It has often been seen that awareness about mental health is increasing over time. It is important to have continuous discussions on how to integrate this defense legally, so that a fair and balanced approach can be promoted with all the people falling in this category.
What is the IPC for Mc’Naughten rule?
What is the Durham rule in IPC?
Durham’s rule states, “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect”.
Is voluntary intoxication a defense in India?
If a man is charged with a crime that requires a specific intent then he can plead intoxication as a defense. But, though this defense will suffice in case of murder it will not extricate liability in case of a charge of manslaughter.