Accused cannot plead insanity in murder case by citing depression: Kerala High Court

Division of the Judicial Collegium Raja Vijayaraghavan V and justice G Girish observed that legal insanity as contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is different from medical insanity.

Section 84 states that nothing is an offense if it is done by a person who, at the time of its commission, is, by reason of unsound mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or who does anything wrong or contrary to the law.

The court said that legal insanity under Section 84 requires proof that mental illness has affected the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, and it is not enough to have mental illness.

“Although Section 84 IPC provides for an exception, it will not automatically apply to all cases of mental illness. There must be evidence of the accused’s mental state at the time of the commission of the crime, based on his/her behavior before, during and after the commission of the act. It should be borne in mind that it is not medical insanity that must be proven, but legal insanity. It is not enough to prove that the defendant suffers from any mental illness to claim exoneration. On the other hand, the evidence must show that the accused was incapable of realizing the nature of his act or that it was unlawful or contrary to law.“, the court explained.

The court made this observation in a case in which a convicted murderer raised a legal insanity defense based on her history of depression.

The court held that in the absence of any evidence that her mental illness affected her ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, she could not claim that she was of unsound mind as required by Section 84 of the IPC.

“We hold that a recurrent depressive disorder with poor adherence to treatment does not qualify the applicant to meet the statutory threshold of insanity. There is no material to show that the mental depression from which the applicant suffered significantly impaired her ability to understand the nature of her actions or to distinguish between right and wrong.“, the court decision says.