M’Naghten Rule under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Legal jargon is for jurists, lawyers and law students; but is it possible to summarise a technical legal theory or doctrine is simple terms? So simple that a judge can use while deciding a the guilt of an accused and it is so simply put that even a layman could understand. Well let’s try.
So when a person commits an offence, he is put to trial. During criminal trial there are two things a criminal court has to look at to decide whether the accused has committed the offence or not. First, the act (actus reus) which has resulted into the harm and second mens rea i.e. the intention or knowledge of the accused. Though the third lower degree of mens rea may also be relevant in certain offences but that’s something we can discuss some other day.
So irrespective of the act, the mental capacity of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence is most relevant. Whether the accused had the mental ability/capacity to understand the nature of the act which he/she is accused of committing? In simple words whether the accused knew that whatever he was doing was wrong? That is the question of the day.
Every individual is presumed sane and responsible for their actions unless proven otherwise. So a criminal court would always consider the accused a reasonably sane person, a person who knew the consequences of his action beause criminal liability arises only when there is intent. Unsoundness of mind negates the formation of mens rea. This principle may be summarised as Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea (An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind): If the mind is incapacitated, the act lacks criminality. In appropriate cases, the accused may claim that at the time of commission of the crime, the accused did not know the nature and quality of the their act; Or did not know what he/she was doing was wrong. It may bed to defect of reason due to some mental disease; a disease of such nature which impaired the cognitive ability of the accused to such extent that the accused could not understand the nature of their actions or differentiate between right and wrong.
As i have already mentioned, Sanity unless, proved otherwise, is a kind of presumption which may be rebutted and to do that the M’Naghten Rule is a legal standard used to determine criminal liability in cases where the defendant/accused claims insanity as a defense. A doctrine borrowed from English jurisprudence, this principle remains a cornerstone of criminal law in India. As a criminal lawyer who’s waded through countless case files and courtrooms, let’s unravel the nuances of this defense – with a pinch of humor and a heavy dose of legalese.
This provision, however, is as stringent as a judge’s gaze in a packed courtroom. It places the burden squarely on the accused to prove unsoundness of mind – a task more daunting than anything else.
Application of the M’Naghten Rule
In USA: Many U.S. jurisdictions use the M’Naghten Rule or a modified version. However, some states have adopted alternative tests for insanity, such as the Durham Rule or the Model Penal Code test.
In India:
Section 22 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita directly incorporates the M’Naghten Rule which 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.
So the question is who will prove the defence of insanity. It is the general principal that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is the accused who has to prove the defence taken by him. Even the supreme court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964) has clarified that while the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused bears the burden to prove insanity. However, this burden is merely to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.
In the case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002), Hon’ble supreme court of india acquitted a man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia who killed his wife. The judgment acknowledged that schizophrenia is a disease of the mind that can impair cognitive faculties, aligning with the M’Naghten principles.
Why is it dificult to prove?
Claiming insanity isn’t as simple as saying, “I lost my mind, Your Honor.” It requires navigating a labyrinth of legal and evidentiary standards, demanding solid medical evidence, detailed psychiatric evaluations, and corroborative behavior patterns to substantiate the accused’s mental illness. The defense must demonstrate with precision that the disease impaired the accused’s understanding of the act’s nature or its wrongness at the exact moment of the crime, all while combating societal stigma and entrenched biases that often cast a shadow over mental illness claims in the courtroom. The defense must prove the disease of mind using Medical evidence, which must encompass diagnostic reports, hospital records, and expert testimony that detail the accused’s mental condition. Psychiatric evaluations play a pivotal role, as courts often rely on the findings of qualified mental health professionals to assess the extent and impact of the accused’s mental illness. Additionally, corroborative behavior patterns, such as erratic actions or prior treatment for mental health issues, are scrutinized to establish a consistent history of unsoundness of mind.
It must be shown that the disease rendered the accused incapable of understanding the act’s nature or wrongness at the exact moment of the crime. For instance, in the case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the court found that the accused, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend his actions when he killed his wife.
Most people in india do not give enough importance to the mental illness and other diseases which effect the cognitive ability of a person because mental illness often carries societal prejudice, which can subtly or overtly influence judicial decisions. Judges may harbor unconscious biases, leading them to view the accused with skepticism rather than empathy. To mitigate this, courts should emphasize mental health education for legal professionals and consider expert testimony from psychiatrists as a standard practice. Incorporating mandatory mental health sensitivity training for judges and lawyers could further diminish the stigma, ensuring fairer evaluations of insanity defenses.
While I might say legally an insane person should not be convicted for the crime just because he did not have the intent or knowledge however overemphasis on the cognitive ability rather than other emotional impairments such as PTSD, sever depression, obsessive compulsive disorders or impulse control disorders which fall outside the rigid framework of the M’Naghten Rule, leaving such defenses inadequately addressed in courtrooms. On top of that M’Naghten Rule is an outdated framework specially when medical science has further advanced exponentially and government should think of incorporating other rules as well so the justice lady who is not blind in India should be able to see and hear the plight of accused who could not understand the consequences of their actions, that to because of some kind of mental impairment.
While M’Naghten Rule remains a double-edged sword in India’s criminal jurisprudence. While it offers a vital defense for genuinely mentally ill individuals, its stringent requirements often leave the accused grappling for acquittal.
As we progress in understanding mental health, it’s high time our legal system evolves to accommodate modern psychiatric insights. Until then, defending insanity will remain both an art and a science – one that’s as challenging as explaining procedural law to a first-year law student.