Patel devansh law task 3 project

1.

SECTION 84 IPC (FOR
TRIAL AND
PROSECUTING
MENTALLY ILL PERSON)
PATEL DEVANSH
17LL4(a)

2.

INTRODUCTION
• Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is the primary
legislation dealing with the criminal
responsibility of mentally ill persons in india.
• This law is based on Mc Naughten Rules
enacted in England.

3.

GOALS
• This law presumes every individual at age of
discretion, to be sane and to possess a sufficient
degree of reason to be responsible for his criminal
acts, unless contrary is proved to satisfaction of
court.

4.

PRINCIPLES
• Plea of mental illness or unsoundness of mind
is usually brought forward by defence to save
his client from capital punishment.
• Case is to be proved by prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt and then only plea of
unsoundness of mind is entertained.

5.

PRINCIPLES
• If case cannot be proved then accused is
outrightly acquitted.
• If defence can prove that accused was of
unsound mind at the time of committing the
offence-then his responsibility diminishes.

6.

CHARACTERISTICS
• Section 84 IPC is based on Mc Naughten's rules of
1843 in England.
• Mr. Daniel Mc Naughten, killed Mr. Edmund
Drummond; private secretary of British Prime
Minister Mr. Robert Peel in mistake for later.
• It was shown that Mc Naughten transected a
business shortly before act and had shown no
signs of insanity. Defence put forth plea of
insanity and accused was acquitted.

7.

CHARACTERISTICS
• Accordingly, some questions were put before
14 judges in House of Lords.
• From answers given some rules were framed
towards determination 'of criminal
responsibility of insane and were called Mc
Naughten rules.

8.

CHARACTERISTICS
• Based on this law was drafted section 84 of
Indian Penal Code, which says:
"nothing is an offence which is done by a
person who, at time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing
nature of act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law“.

9.

CHARACTERISTICS
• To be exempted under this section only proof of
insanity is not enough.
• It should be clearly proved that: Unsoundness of
mind existed at time of offence. Unsoundness
was of such a degree which rendered him
incapable of knowing nature of act.
• Even if he' knew nature of act he did not know
that it was wrong or against law.

10.

CONTENTS
• A. Unsoundness of mind:
Unsoundness of mind is used to describe only
those conditions that affect cognitive capacity of
an individual. So, every person who is mentally ill
is not relieved from his responsibilities. Here law
makes distinction between medical and legal
insanity.
Law recognizes only those conditions as insanity
which impairs cognitive faculties of mind.

11.

CONTENTS
• B. Unsoundness should exist at the time of the
act:
It is another requirement under law. It is only
presence of insanity at time of act which matters
and not before or after that.
If insanity exists at time of trial it can only lead to
postponement of trial but not to acquittal of
accused.

12.

CONTENTS
• C. Nature of the act:
If accused did not know nature of act he was
committing or similarly, if he knew nature of act
but-did not know whether it was wrong or
contrary to law he is not liable.
If person did not know nature of act but knew
that it is wrong as contrary to law he is held
responsible. If evidence shows that accused was
conscious of nature of act, he must be presumed
to have been conscious of its criminality."

13.

PRACTICAL REALIZATION
Calcutta High Court:
Digendra Nath Roy vs The State on 28 November,
1967.
• Digendra a mentally retarded attempted to kill his
wife and two children with a sharp knife, when he
was not able to get money which he gave to his
father as a loan. He assaulted the three because
his stepmother told him that if he could not feed
his kids he should kill them and being so told he
did it.

14.

PRACTICAL REALIZATION
• His behaviour was normal before and after the
offence. But was held insane while committing
the offence and was acquitted.
• The court sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for 7 years with rehabilitation.

15.

SIGNIFICANCE
• Depending upon condition and nature of offence,
accused can be sent to prison, psychiatric
hospital, any other place of safe custody or he
may be acquitted.
• Concept behind this provision is that as such this
person was not in complete control of mind at
time of offence so he should not be punished.
Moreover, he need not be punished as
punishment is already given to him by nature.'