Abstract
Every once in a century a crime so heinous and disturbing comes to light that it terrorises the nation to its core, whether it's Raman Raghav, Bombay’s psychopathic serial killer or the ritualistic suicide deaths of Burari. The functioning of a criminal mind has forever baffled us, while several factors can be classified for causation of a crime; socio-cultural, economic, mental, physical, and attitudinal, the psyche behind the criminal mind has been a research topic for several years now. Through this article, we are going to delve a little further into the origins of insanity and Section 84 of IPC, a general exception for mental unsoundness and what role the psychology of a criminal plays in the commission of a crime.
This article is written by our intern Simran Chotmurada, a third-year law student from Government Law College, Mumbai.
What is Criminal Psychology?
Criminal psychology, also referred to as criminological psychology is a study affecting normal behaviour. It is the study of the views, thoughts, intentions, actions and reactions of criminals, all that partakes in criminal behaviour.
Criminal behaviour can be stated as “Any kind of antisocial behaviour, which is punishable usually by law but can be punished by norms, stated by the community,”. It is a branch of psychology which investigates the psychology of crime with particular reference to the personality factors of the criminal.
Psychology is the science of behaviour and mental processes. Criminal psychology, then, is the science of the behaviour and mental processes of the person who commits a crime. While sociological criminology focuses primarily on groups and society as a whole, and how they influence criminal activity, criminal psychology focuses on individual criminal behaviour—how it is acquired, evoked, maintained, and modified. In the psychology of crime, both social and personality influences on criminal behaviour are considered, along with the mental processes that mediate that behaviour.
Origins of Criminal Insanity
The M’Naghten Case was the first legal test for criminal insanity. The rule was formulated in 1843, after Daniel M’Naghten, a Scottish woodcutter, was acquitted of killing a man he believed to be the prime minister. M’Naghten suffered from paranoia and thought he was being persecuted bjy the Prime Minister of England, Sir Robert Peel. He fired a shot into a carriage transporting Peel’s secretary, Edward Drumond, thinking Peel himself was in the carriage.
At trial, M’Naghten’s counsel put forth a defence of insanity, offering expert testimony and other evidence in support of this. Following instructions from the judge, the jury’s verdict was not guilty “because of insanity” and M’Naghten spent the rest of his life in a mental institution. There was no question that M’Naghten had committed the act, but the court believed he was so mentally deranged that it would be inhumane to convict him.
In his charge to the jury, the Chief Justice said that the question for them to be determined was whether at the time of committing the act he had or had not used his understanding to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. Applying a “wild beast” test in use at the time, the court concluded it was clear he was not in control of his faculties. He was committed to the Broadmoor Mental Institution, where he remained until his death 22 years later.
It was widely believed that M’Naghten “knew” his actions were wrong and that he should have been convicted. Thus, the rule that bears M’Naghten’s name is not the rule under which he was tried.
Essentially, the rule states that if a person, because of some mental disease, did not know right from wrong at the time of an unlawful act, or did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong, that person cannot be held responsible for his or her actions. Thus, the M’Naghten Rule is sometimes called the Right and Wrong test.
M’Naughten Rules (Right & Wrong Test)
Every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason until the contrary is proven.
To establish a defence based on insanity, it must be ascertained, that at the time of committing the act, the accused was in such a state of mind as was unable to know the true nature of the act.
If the person was conscious that the act that he was committing was contrary to the law, then he is punishable.
Where the Criminal Act is committed by a man under some insane delusion as to the surrounding facts, which conceals from him the true nature of the act he is doing, he will be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the fact as imagined them to be.
A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be asked whether, on evidence, he thinks that the accused was insane.
General Exception- Sec. 84 of IPC
The defence of Insanity in criminal cases is to be found in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is reproduced below:
Act of a person of unsound mind—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because 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.
Insanity is provided following Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code as a defence under Indian Law. However, the term “insanity” is not used under this provision. The Indian Penal Code uses the sentence “mental soundness.” Under the code, the defence of insanity, or what can also be called the defence of mental insanity, comes from M’Naghten’s rule. Nothing is an offence committed by someone who is currently unable to know the nature of the act or does what is wrong or contrary to legislation due to a lack of a sound mind. This section embodies a fundamental maxim of criminal jurisprudence, viz. that an act does not constitute a crime unless done with a guilty intention. To constitute a crime, the intent (mens rea) and the act (actus rea) must concur. The section fastens no culpability on insane persons because they can have no rational thinking or the necessary guilty intent.
Conclusion:
The Indian law recognizes the traditional M’Naghten Rules where only the impairment of the defendant’s ‘knowledge’ is taken into account; there is no enquiry into the degree to which the defendant’s self-control is impaired. While the term mentally unsound has not been defined under the IPC, but it has been equated by the courts to imply criminal insanity. The defendant can be convicted despite a proven severe mental illness if he is aware of what he was doing and that his act was evil or a prescribed behaviour.
Commenti