Facts of the Case
- A intentionally shoots B with a firearm.
- The act is deliberate, aimed, and results in serious injury or death.
- After committing the act, A claims that he was insane at the time of the incident.
- A pleads that due to his mental condition, he was incapable of understanding the nature or consequences of his act.
- Medical evidence may or may not support A’s plea of insanity.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A truly suffered from legal insanity at the time of shooting B.
- Whether A had the capacity to understand the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.
- Whether intentional aiming and shooting contradict the claim of insanity.
- Whether the plea satisfies Section 84 IPC and the principles of the McNaughten Rules.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Section 84 IPC – Act of a person of unsound mind
- A person is exempt from criminal liability if, at the time of doing the act:
✔ He was of unsound mind, and
✔ He could not understand the nature of the act, or
✔ He did not know that the act was wrong or contrary to law. - This is a defense of legal insanity, not medical insanity.
B. McNaughten Rules (English Law, adopted by India)
- Legal insanity tests the cognitive incapacity, not emotional or impulsive behavior.
- Mere abnormality, depression, anger, intoxication, or mental weakness is not sufficient.
C. Burden of Proof
- On the accused (Section 105, Indian Evidence Act).
- Must prove insanity on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
D. Circumstantial Behaviour
The court examines:
- Prior medical history of mental illness.
- Abnormal behaviour before, during, or after the act.
- Whether the act was done with planning (aiming, loading weapon, escaping).
- Conduct after shooting (running away or hiding indicates sanity).
E. Case Law Support
1. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat
- Accused must prove he was incapable of knowing the act was wrong.
2. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand
- Mere plea of insanity without strong evidence is not enough.
3. Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra
- If the act is deliberate and planned, plea of insanity usually fails.
Possible Judgement
Likely Court Conclusion
- A intentionally shot B, which suggests:
✔ Knowledge of weapon handling
✔ Deliberate aim
✔ Conscious choice to shoot - These acts normally indicate awareness and control, contradicting a claim of insanity.
- Unless A proves with credible medical and behavioural evidence that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the exact moment of the incident, his plea will fail.
Probable Judicial Outcome
- If NO strong medical evidence:
➤ A is guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC.
➤ Section 84 IPC does not apply. - If strong medical evidence + proven incapacity:
➤ A may be protected under Section 84 IPC.
➤ He will be acquitted on grounds of insanity but may be sent to a mental health facility under CrPC Section 335–339.
About lawgnan
If you want to understand criminal defences such as insanity, mental incapacity, or legal exemptions under the Indian Penal Code, visit Lawgana.in—India’s fast-growing legal knowledge and services platform. Whether you are a law student, advocate, researcher, or someone seeking legal clarity, our expertly drafted explanations, case-based insights, and practical legal guidance will empower your understanding of complex criminal law concepts. Explore detailed case studies, IPC analyses, evidence rules, and procedural law updates. Stay informed, stay legally aware, and rely on Lawgana.in for accurate, reliable, and accessible legal resources crafted for everyone.
