Question: A under the influence of unsoundness of mind attempts to kill B. What offence has been committed by A, if any? [RJS 1984] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites.  [A under the influence of unsoundness of mind attempts to kill B. What offence has been committed by A, if any?] Answer A… Read More »

Question: A under the influence of unsoundness of mind attempts to kill B. What offence has been committed by A, if any? [RJS 1984] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A under the influence of unsoundness of mind attempts to kill B. What offence has been committed by A, if any?] Answer A has committed no offence under the present case as he is entitled to the protection of Section 84 which talks about insanity as a defence for conviction. Insanity as a defence in...

Question: A under the influence of unsoundness of mind attempts to kill B. What offence has been committed by A, if any? [RJS 1984]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A under the influence of unsoundness of mind attempts to kill B. What offence has been committed by A, if any?]

Answer

A has committed no offence under the present case as he is entitled to the protection of Section 84 which talks about insanity as a defence for conviction. Insanity as a defence in a criminal prosecution is embodied in section 84 of the code. This runs as follows:

“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 what he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law”

In order to get the benefit of the provision of section 84, IPC, three elements are necessary any one of which must have to be established by the accused:

  1. That the accused because of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act; or
  2. That the act was contrary to law; or
  3. That the ct was wrong.

In the cases of unsoundness of mind, the standard of proof required from the accused is not the standard of proof required from the prosecution.

In Amrit Bhushan v. Union of India [1977 AIR 608], the Supreme Court found that the M’Naghten rules define and explain the word “insanity” of the accused whereas under Section 84, the word “unsound mind” has been described which is equivalent to insanity. Therefore a wider scope was given to the term “unstable mind” and also recognised the non-compos mends (not in one’s right mind), which can be used as a defence of insanity under the criminal law. To get the defence under provision given in Section 84, some essential elements shall be satisfied i.e.

  • The mind of the accused should be incapable of being aware of the nature of the act.
  • The act should be contrary to law.
  • The act should be wrong.
  • To establish the insanity or unsound mind of the defendant, his cognitive abilities of the defendant must be that he does not know his actions or the consequences of such an act.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-07-05T19:18:48+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story