Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?  

• Recently, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Reji Thomas @Vayalar v. State of Kerala, has held that every person who is mentally diseased is not exempted from criminal responsibility.  
• It was further held that mere lack of motive will not bring a case within the ambit of Section 84 of the IPC to take general exception of unsoundness of mind. 

Background  

• In this case, the accused was convicted for allegedly murdering his own eight-year-old son under Section 302 of IPC.  
• The Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  
• Thereafter the accused approached the Kerala High Court who held that the accused was suffering from Bipolar affective disorder. 
  
  • The Court found that the accused was entitled to benefit of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC and acquitted the accused.  

Court’s Observations  

• A bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that intent and act must concur for constituting a crime, but in the case of insane persons, no culpability can be fastened on them as they have no free will. 
• The Court further added that the benefit of unsoundness of mind is available only if it is proved that during the commission of the offence, the accused, due to defect of reason and disease of the mind, was unable to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was contrary to law. 

Legal Provisions  

Section 84 of IPC 

• It deals with the act of a person of unsound mind. It states that -  
  
  • 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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 
• Section 84 IPC is one of the general defenses available under the IPC and provides for the defence of insanity.  
  
  • The foundation for the law of insanity was laid down by the House of Lords in 1843, in what is popularly known as the M’Naghten case. 
• The word ‘insanity’ is not used in Section 84 of IPC.  
  
  • It uses the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’, which is not defined in the Code. However, the courts in India have treated the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’ as equivalent to ‘insanity’.  
• In order to seek protection under Section 84 of IPC, it is necessary for an accused to prove that he, because of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that the act was contrary to law. 
• In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P(2002), it was held that the crucial point of time at which the unsound mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to benefit from Section 84 can only be determined from the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed the crime. 
  
  • The insanity prior to or subsequent to the commission of the offence is not in itself adequate to absolve him from criminal liability. 

Section 302 of IPC 

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.