What Is Legal Unsoundness
. In HARI SINGH GOND V STATE OF M.P. [2008 (8) TMI 1012 – Supreme Court], the Supreme Court held that section 84 establishes legal review of liability for insanity. There is no definition of “insanity” in I.P.C. However, the courts have treated this expression primarily as a mental illness. But the term “madness” itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe different degrees of mental disorders. Therefore, not every person suffering from mental illness is ipso facto exempt from criminal responsibility. A distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court deals with legal insanity, not medical insanity. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his mental illness, which arises from section 105 of the Evidence Act 1872 and is not as incriminating as that of the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed the act of which he is charged.
The mere absence of a motive for a crime, and however horrific the crime, may bring the case within the scope of Article 84 of the ICC in the absence of plea and evidence of insanity. [16,30] Even the fact that the accused did not attempt to escape from the crime scene does not indicate that he was mentally ill or did not have the mens rea necessary to commit the crime. [30] In addition, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the mere mental abnormality or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath does not offer protection under section 84 of the CPI. [16] It is now generally accepted that the decisive moment when insanity should be established is when the offence is actually committed and the burden of proof is on the complainant. In one of the landmark decisions, Surendra Mishra v. Jharkhand State,[20] the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant seeking exoneration from liability for an act under section 84 of the CPI must prove legal insanity, not medical insanity. In addition, the Delegation also stated that the term “insanity” was not defined in the IPC and was mainly treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity has a different meaning in different contexts and describes different degrees of mental disorders. Not all persons suffering from mental illness are exempt from criminal responsibility.
The mere fact that the accused is conceited, strange, angry and that his brain is not quite in order, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he has suffered have weakened his intellect and affected his emotions or have engaged in certain unusual actions, or that he has had bouts of madness at short intervals, or that he has been subjected to epileptic seizures and that there has been abnormal behaviour or that the behaviour is strange, is not sufficient to ensure the application of Article 84 of the IPC. [16] Section 5 of the Mental Health Act, 2017[2] states that the determination of a person`s mental illness shall not in itself imply or be understood to mean that the person is mentally unhealthy unless declared as such by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the case of an application against C.S. J. Karnan before a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, where the court concluded that the Calcutta Supreme Court judge may not be medically able to defend himself in the contempt trial, based on his press conference and orders. In the case of Justice C. S. Karnan, the Supreme Court ordered that he be medically examined by a medical association. Regardless of his mental health, the Supreme Court will have ascertained that Judge Karnan is incapable of understanding his actions and is incapable of forming a rational judgment on the impact of his actions on his interests, and will therefore have declared Judge Karnan to be of sound mind, before he dismisses the legal proceedings.
Indian law allows for the suspension of court proceedings if a person is mentally unhealthy. In the case of Smt.Vimlesh without Sri Prakash Chand vs Sri Prakash Chandsharma s/o Ram,[3] the complainant is the husband. He married the respondent on 24.02.1978. They lived together for about fifteen months, after which differences arose that necessitated a separation. The husband then filed for divorce in 1981 in which he filed for the dissolution of the marriage on three main grounds, namely abandonment, cruelty and mental integrity.