Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Keral High Court in the matter of Shine Kumar v. State of Kerala, has allowed the plea of insanity as a defence under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Shine Kumar v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the accused is the younger son of his parents (victims).
• The accused was aged about 40 years at that time. The incident occurred on 30^th September 2015, when the accused was home alone with the two victims.
• A case was registered, and after investigation, a final report was filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by the accused.
• The accused denied the charge framed and read over to him by the Court of Session did not accept the plea of legal insanity set out by the accused.
• It was further stated that no motive has been proved for the accused to cause the death of his parents and the very fact that he had not made any attempt to run away would not indicate by itself that he was insane.
• Aggrieved by the said decision, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and Johnson John observed that even though the mere fact that no motive has been proved for the accused to cause the death of his parents and the very fact that he had not made any attempt to run away would not indicate by itself that he was insane, according to us, in the peculiar facts of this case, the same are also to be taken note of in the matter of deciding the entitlement of the appellant the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
• The Court allowed the appeal and granted immunity under the provisions of Section 84 of IPC.

What is Section 84 of IPC?

About:

• Section 84 of IPC deals with the act of a person of unsound mind whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 22 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• 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’.
• This section is legal insanity and not medical insanity. The crucial point of time for deciding the legal insanity is the material time when the offence took place
• 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.
• The crucial point of time of such incapability due to unsoundness of mind is the time when he committed the offence.
• His insanity prior to or subsequent to the commission of the offence is not in itself adequate to absolve him from the criminal liability.

Case Law:

• In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P(2002), Supreme Court 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 of IPC can only be determined from the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed the crime.