Judicial Interpretation Of Ncrmd And Insanity Defences
India follows the McNaughton Rule, codified under:
Section 84 – Indian Penal Code (IPC)
“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 what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.”
Key Principles of NCRMD/Insanity Defence
Unsoundness must exist at the time of the act
(not before, not after—must be contemporaneous).
Burden of Proof
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused must prove insanity only on a preponderance of probabilities.
Legal Insanity ≠ Medical Insanity
A medical diagnosis alone is insufficient—court looks at cognitive incapacity under law.
Behaviour Before, During, After the Crime Matters
Courts infer insanity from conduct, motive, prior illness, and expert testimony.
II. LANDMARK CASE LAW ON NCRMD & INSANITY DEFENCE
Below are 7 major cases, explained in depth.
1. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964)
Most Important Case for Burden of Proof
Facts:
The accused killed his wife and claimed insanity. He had a history of abnormal behavior.
Held:
Supreme Court held presumption of sanity applies unless rebutted.
Accused must prove insanity on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Even if insanity is not proved conclusively, evidence raising reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
Principle Established:
✔ Burden of proof shifts after prosecution establishes guilt.
✔ Insanity need not be conclusively proven; probability is enough.
2. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011)
Key Case on Behaviour Before and After the Act
Facts:
A man killed his wife with an axe. The defense pleaded insanity.
Held:
Court rejected the insanity defense.
Behavioral patterns showed that the accused:
selected the weapon,
inflicted deliberate blows,
attempted to flee.
→ This showed awareness of the act, contradicting insanity.
Principle Established:
✔ Conduct immediately after the act is crucial.
✔ Planned or intentional acts defeat the insanity plea.
3. Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007)
Critical for Distinguishing Medical vs. Legal Insanity
Facts:
Accused claimed schizophrenia.
Held:
Court held schizophrenia alone does not prove legal insanity.
Must show inability to know nature of act at the time of crime.
Medical documentation is supplementary, not conclusive.
Principle Established:
✔ Medical insanity ≠ Legal insanity.
✔ Only cognitive incapacity at the time of the act counts.
4. Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970)
Important for Long-Term Mental Illness
Facts:
Accused was known to be mentally ill for years, and stabbed a stranger without provocation.
Held:
Presence of chronic mental illness + lack of motive supported insanity claim.
Court acquitted under Section 84 IPC.
Principle Established:
✔ Long-term mental disorder + irrational act = strong evidence of NCRMD.
✔ Lack of motive may support insanity.
5. Shri Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011)
Case on Expert Testimony vs. Lay Testimony
Facts:
Accused stabbed victim in public and behaved irrationally post-offence. Doctors confirmed psychosis history.
Held:
Court gave weight to expert psychiatric evidence, eyewitness accounts of strange behavior, and chronic illness history.
Accused was acquitted under Section 84 IPC.
Principle Established:
✔ Expert evidence + behavioural evidence = strong insanity defence.
✔ Courts consider totality, not one element.
6. Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India (1977)
Government Employee and Mental Illness Case
Facts:
A government servant attacked colleagues. He had documented schizophrenia.
Held:
Court found that the accused was mentally unstable and incapable of knowing consequences.
Insanity defence accepted.
Principle Established:
✔ Documentary evidence of ongoing treatment and past episodes is crucial.
✔ Workplace history of mental disorder strengthens NCRMD.
7. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2010)
Case on Post-Offence Behaviour
Facts:
Accused killed his mother but did not flee and behaved abnormally when arrested.
Held:
Court accepted insanity plea because:
No attempt to escape,
No motive,
Abnormal reactions during arrest,
Long-standing mental illness records.
Principle Established:
✔ Post-crime conduct showing lack of awareness supports NCRMD.
✔ Absence of motive is highly relevant.
III. PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM CASE LAW
| Legal Principle | Supporting Cases | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof on accused (balance of probability) | Dahyabhai Thakkar | Lower standard than prosecution |
| Behaviour at the time of offence critical | Surendra Mishra, Sudhakaran | Intentional conduct undermines plea |
| Medical insanity ≠ Legal insanity | Bapu v. Rajasthan | Must affect cognitive ability |
| Chronic illness + irrational act may support NCRMD | Ratan Lal, Amrit Bhushan Gupta | History matters |
| Expert evidence is persuasive but not conclusive | Shri Kumar | Combined assessment needed |
| Absence of motive strengthens defence | Sudhakaran, Ratan Lal | Irrational acts imply cognitive impairment |
| Post-offence conduct is key evidence | Multiple cases | Flight, concealment, planning affect defence |
IV. WHEN COURTS ACCEPT NCRMD (INSANITY) DEFENCE
Courts accept NCRMD when evidence shows:
✔ Proven history of mental illness
✔ No motive or irrational nature of crime
✔ Absence of planning or concealment
✔ Abnormal behaviour before/after the act
✔ Expert psychiatric opinion
✔ Family/witness testimony of strange conduct
V. WHEN COURTS REJECT NCRMD
Courts reject the defence when:
✘ Act appears planned
✘ Accused fled or tried to destroy evidence
✘ No medical history
✘ Behavior showed awareness of consequences
✘ Only temporary anger or intoxication is claimed
✘ Post-offence conduct is normal
VI. CONCLUSION
Judicial interpretation of the insanity defence in India is strict and highly evidence-based. Courts interpret NCRMD not with sympathy but with:
Legal tests (not medical tests)
Behavioural patterns
Burden of proof rules
Expert testimony
Motive analysis
The consistent judicial approach ensures that the defence is granted only where genuine cognitive incapacity exists, thereby balancing justice, fairness, and public safety.
RELATED Blog
comments