The evidence clearly showed that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder. Arnold (1724), in which Edward Arnold attempted to kill and even wound Lord Onslow and was tried for the same. The first case which dealt with the law of insanity was R v. The history of the law of insanity can be traced back to the 1700s. But, it took a legal status from the last three centuries. The insanity law as a defense has been in existence from many centuries. Origin of the Rules on the Plea of Insanity The Law Commission of India in its 42 nd report, made an effort to reanalyze Section 84, but no modifications were made. ![]() ” The burden of proof is always on the defendant, and it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Indian law, the rationale of insanity as a defence is incorporated in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is based upon the “ Mc’Naughten’s Rule. ![]() The factor that the person is suffering from a mental illness is by itself not sufficient to prove that he is insane. The unsoundness of mind should be of such an extent that it makes the offender completely incompetent in knowing the nature of the act. The defence of insanity is a law that protects a person who is incapable of understanding the nature of the act done by him. The Intention or guilty mind ( Mens Rea ) of the offender is an integral part while committing a crime. There is a well-established principle, “ Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea, ” which, in the literal sense means, an act does not make an offender liable without a guilty mind. Other research from India describes a very dull image of patients in forensic psychiatry with the support of supporters of the need to rationalize the strategy of referral, diagnosis, treatment and certification. The philosophical basis for the exemption of crazy transgressors from criminal responsibility is perhaps the functional limitation of retributive and dissuasive theories of punishment that highlights the provision of section 84 of the Indian Criminal Code that is based on Mc Naughten’s 1843 Rule In England. In a 2011 forensic psychiatry study in which 5024 prisoners were evaluated in a semi-structured interview program that showed the analysis that 4002 (79.6%) people could be diagnosed with disease diagnosis. Therefore, there are few studies on the exploration of the clinical picture of patients in prison. However, it presents some fascinating problems that deserve careful analysis. Insanity as a defence in India remains an unsolved problem in criminal jurisprudence. Evaluation of mental status and cognitive functioning.Assessment focusing on mental state at the time of the offence.Assessment of history of presenting illness.Incapacity to know the nature of the act.Distinction between Legal and Medical Insanity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |