A person suffering from mental disorder has been provided protection under the law against prosecution for any crime, including murder, but the Supreme Court in an important judgment held that the benefit was very rare and would be available only if there was “irrefutable” medical proof of the failure of “cognitive faculties” of the accused.
Defining the scope of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides the immunity to “insane” person against prosecution, a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar said that the provision has to be applied with utmost care by the courts.
“For claiming the benefit of the defence of insanity in law, the accused would have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the crime was committed as not to know the nature of the act,” the court said. “The accused has to prove that by reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. In the alternate, he would have to prove that he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing either was wrong or contrary to the law,” the bench explained. In this context, the apex court referred to the Naughten Rules’ laid down by the “House of Lords” in England in 1843, which became guiding factors for applying the principle all over the world.
Daniel Mc Naughten was charged with the attempted assassination of British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843 but he ended up in killing his secretary Edward Drummond with a gunshot.
During the trial, Naughten claimed that he was of unsound mind and did not know the consequences of his act. His lawyers argued that he had the illusion that the Prime Minister was responsible for all of his personal problems and his elimination would solve them.