ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................................
3
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER...................................................................................5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................6
M’Naghten Rule...............................................................................................................................6
PROVISION AS TO ACCUSED PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND..............................................7
Section 367: Procedure in case of accused being person of unsound mind.......................7
Section 368: Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court................7
Section 369: Release of person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial...............7
Section 370–371: Resumption of Inquiry or Trial...............................................................7
Section 372: When accused appears to have been of sound mind......................................7
Section 373: Judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind...........................8
Section 374: Person acquitted on ground of unsoundness of mind to be detained in safe
custody...................................................................................................................................8
Section 375: Power of State Government to empower officer-in-charge to discharge......8
Section 376: Procedure where prisoner of unsound mind is reported capable of making
his defence.............................................................................................................................8
Section 377. Procedure where person of unsound mind detained is declared fit to be
released..................................................................................................................................9
Section 378. Delivery of person of unsound mind to care of relative or friend..................9
CASE LAW........................................................................................................................................10
Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2008 Cri LJ 2121).........................10
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 602.......................................12
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................14
BIBLOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................15
Page 1 of 15
WEBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................16
ABSTRACT
The criminal justice system is founded on the principle that only those who possess sufficient
mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, and to participate
in their own defense, can be subjected to trial and punishment. When an accused person is of
unsound mind, the law mandates special safeguards to ensure fairness and to protect the
constitutional rights of the individual. This paper examines the statutory provisions, judicial
interpretations, and procedural safeguards governing the trial of an accused who is alleged to
be of unsound mind under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973). It analyses how courts balance the competing concerns of
protecting society from crime, safeguarding the rights of mentally ill accused persons, and
upholding the principles of natural justice. The paper further highlights evolving
jurisprudence and case law that emphasize humane treatment, medical evaluation, and the
suspension of criminal proceedings until the accused is fit to stand trial
Page 2 of 15
MAIN BODY
INTRODUCTION
The law does not punish where there is no culpability. This maxim assumes profound
significance in cases involving accused persons of unsound mind. The ability to comprehend
the proceedings and to make a rational defence is a cornerstone of criminal adjudication.
Recognizing this, the legislature has carved out a distinct legal framework to deal with
situations where an accused suffers from mental illness or incapacity.
Historically, Indian courts have adhered to the M’Naughten Rules while assessing criminal
responsibility of persons with mental disorders. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (now
reflected in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) codifies the defence of insanity, exempting
from liability those who, at the time of committing the act, were incapable of knowing its
nature or that it was wrong or contrary to law. Parallel to the procedural law—earlier under
Sections 328–339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and now Sections 367- 378 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—lays down mechanisms to suspend trial,
mandate medical examination, and even order safe custody or treatment of the accused until
found fit to face trial.
Page 3 of 15
OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER
To examine the legal framework governing the trial of an accused person of unsound
mind under Indian criminal law, specifically focusing on the Criminal Procedure
Code (CrPC) and its counterpart under chapter XXVII Section 367 – 378 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
To differentiate between procedural incapacity and criminal responsibility, i.e., the
distinction between being unfit to stand trial and being not guilty by reason of insanity
under Section 84 IPC.
To analyse judicial interpretation of unsoundness of mind through leading case laws
such as:
Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta
other relevant precedents
To evaluate the role of medical evidence in determining mental incapacity and legal
insanity, and how courts rely on psychiatric assessments during trials.
To assess whether existing legal procedures adequately protect the rights of mentally
ill accused, especially in terms of fair trial, legal representation, and suspension of
proceedings.
To suggest legal and institutional reforms aimed at strengthening protections for
persons of unsound mind during criminal trials, in line with human rights standards
and international best practices.
Page 4 of 15
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Researchers have adopted doctrinal method of research for completing the purpose of
research. Doctrinal research is concerned with the innovation and expansion of legal
doctrines with the help of textbooks or journal articles. Since the research is mainly
concerned with legal concepts and doctrines on insanity, the doctrinal form of research is the
most appropriate. Primary as well as secondary sources of information consisting relevant
case laws and literature available in the form of articles, reports, journals, commentaries on
Indian Penal Code written by eminent authors and online databases have been pursued.
M’Naghten Rule
The foundation for the law of insanity was laid down by the House of Lords in 1843, in the
case of M’Naghten case1. The accused by the name of Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a
delusion that Sir Robert Peel, the then Prime Minister of Britain had injured him. He mistook
Edward Drummond, Secretary to the Prime Minister for Sir Robert Peel. He shot and killed
him. The accused took the plea of insanity. The medical evidence showed that M’Naghten
was laboring under a morbid delusion which carried him away beyond the power of his own
control. He was held to be ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ by the jury. However, his
acquittal cased public excitement and considerable furor. The verdict was made a subject of
debate in the House of Lords. In consequences of the debate, to make the law on the topic
clear, a set of five questions were formulated and put to the House of Lords for definite
answer. Answers to these questions are known as M’Naghten rules. The second and third of
the five questions and the answers thereto constitutes the core of law of insanity as an
extenuating factor.
The following main principles were enunciated by the House of Lords in reply to the
questions:
1. Every person is presumed to be same and to poses a sufficient degree of reasons to be
responsible for his crimes, until the contrary is established.
1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule
Page 5 of 15
2. To establish the defence of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of
committing the crime, the person was so insane as not to know the nature and quality
of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing
was wrong.
3. The test of wrongfulness of the act is in the power to distinguish between right and
wrong, not in the abstract or in general, but in regard to the particular act committed.
Legal Framework under BNSS Chapter XXVII (Section 367–378)
2
PROVISION AS TO ACCUSED PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND
Section 367: Procedure in case of accused being person of unsound mind
When a Magistrate holding an inquiry believes the accused is unsound of mind and incapable
of defending, they must verify this condition typically through civil surgeon and may
postpone proceedings.
In the case of Mohan Lal Ranjan Mohan Bhatnagar vs The State, Delhi. 2011, it was
contended that the evidence on record shows that the appellant was examined by various
doctors prior to the start of the trial by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in proceedings
under Section 328 CrPC (Now under Section 367 of BNSS) and was found to be a man of
unsound mind, and the learned M.M. also passed an order in this regard and the trial began
only after he was declared mentally fit.3
Section 368: Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court
If, during trial before a Magistrate or Court of Session, the accused appears of unsound mind
and consequently incapable of making his defence, the court must determine this, and if
confirmed, suspend the trial and order their detention in safe custody pending further orders.
Section 369: Release of person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial
2
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/250884_2_english_01042024.pdf
3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/criminal-procedure-case-person-unsound-mind/#References
Page 6 of 15
An accused person may be released or handed over to a responsible relative or friend if the
court deems them not dangerous, subject to protective bonds.
Section 370–371: Resumption of Inquiry or Trial
Once the accused is fit to defend, the court must resume inquiry or trial; if they appear before
court capable, proceedings may continue or bail ordered.
Section 372: When accused appears to have been of sound mind
When the accused appears to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial and the
Magistrate is satisfied from the evidence given before him that there is reason to believe that
the accused committed an act, which, if he had been of sound mind, would have been an
offence, and that he was, at the time when the act was committed, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law,
the Magistrate shall proceed with the case.
Section 373: Judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind
Whenever any person is acquitted upon the ground that, at the time of which he is alleged in
have committed an offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing
the nature of the act alleged as constituting the offence, or that it was wrong or contrary to
law, the finding shall state specifically whether he committed the act or not.
Section 374: Person acquitted on ground of unsoundness of mind to be detained in safe
custody4
Whenever the finding states that the accused. Person committed the act alleged, the
Magistrate or Court before whom or which the trial has been held, shall, if such act would,
but for the incapacity found, have constituted an offence,-
a) Order such person to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as the
Magistrate or Court thinks fit; or
b) Order such person to be delivered to any relative or friend of such person.
Section 375: Power of State Government to empower officer-in-charge to discharge
4
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/250884_2_english_01042024.pdf
Page 7 of 15
The State Government may empower the officer-in-charge of the jail in which a person is
confined under the provisions of section 369 or section 374 to discharge all or any of the
functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons.
Section 376: Procedure where prisoner of unsound mind is reported capable of making
his defence
Procedure where prisoner of unsound mind is reported capable of making his defence. If a
person is detained under the provisions of sub-Inspector-General of Prisons, or, in the case of
a person detained in a public section (2) of section 369, and in the case of a person detained
in a jail, the mental health establishment, the Mental Health Review Board constituted under
the Mental Healthcare Act. 2017 (10 of 2017), shall certify that, in his or their opinion, such
person is capable of making his defence, he shall be taken before the Magistrate or Court, as
the case may be, at such time as the Magistrate or Court appoints, and the Magistrate or Court
shall deal with such person under the provisions of section 371; and the certificate of such
Inspector-General or visitors as aforesaid shall be receivable as evidence.
Section 377. Procedure where person of unsound mind detained is declared fit to be
released
If a person is detained under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 369, or section 374,
and such Inspector-General or visitors shall certify that, in his or their judgment, he may be
released without danger of his doing injury to himself or to any other person, the State
Government may thereupon order him to be released, or to be detained in custody, or to be
transferred to a public mental health establishment if he has not been already sent to such
establishment; and, in case it orders him to be transferred to a public mental health
establishment, may appoint a Commission, consisting of a Judicial and two medical officers.
Such Commission shall make a formal inquiry into the state of mind of such person, take
such evidence as is necessary, and shall report to the State Government, which may order his
release or detention as it thinks fit.
Section 378. Delivery of person of unsound mind to care of relative or friend5
Whenever any relative or friend of any person detained under the provisions of section 369 or
section 374 desires that he shall be delivered to his care and custody, the State Government
may, upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the
satisfaction of such State Government, that the person delivered shall-
a) be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other
person;
5
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/250884_2_english_01042024.pdf
Page 8 of 15
b) be produced for the inspection of such officer, and at such times and places, as the
State Government may direct;
c) in the case of a person detained under sub-section (2) of section 369, be produced
when required before such Magistrate or Court, order such person to be delivered to
such relative or friend.
If the person so delivered is accused of any offence, the trial of which has been postponed by
reason of his being of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, and the inspecting
officer referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), certifies at any time to the Magistrate or
Court that such person is capable of making his defence, such Magistrate or Court shall call
upon the relative or friend to whom such accused was delivered to produce him before the
Magistrate or Court; and, upon such production the Magistrate or Court shall proceed in
accordance with the provisions of section 371, and the certificate of the inspecting officer
shall be receivable as evidence.
CASE LAW
Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2008 Cri LJ 2121)6
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Vinod K. Sharma
Facts:
The accused, Dimple, also known as Dimpu or Gurcharan Singh, was charged with murder
under Section 302 IPC. During the trial, it was medically established that the accused was
suffering from chronic psychotic illness (schizophrenia). A medical board opined that he was
not capable of understanding the proceedings or defending himself in court. Despite this
medical evidence, the Trial Court continued the proceedings, conducted the trial, and
ultimately convicted him
.
Legal Issues:
Whether the Trial Court acted illegally by proceeding with the trial without first
determining the mental capacity of the accused under Section 329 CrPC?
Whether such a trial, in which the accused is incapable of defending himself, is
legally valid?
Relevant Legal Provision:
Section 329 CrPC (Now Section 368 of BNSS): Provides that if, during the trial, the court has
reason to believe that the accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence,
the court must inquire into the fact and postpone the trial.
6
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/228485/
Page 9 of 15
Arguments:
Defence: Highlighted the accused’s schizophrenia and incapacity to defend himself. Argued
that proceeding with the trial violated procedural fairness and principle of Natural Justice.
Prosecution: Did not effectively counter the medical evidence regarding unsoundness.
Judgment:
The High Court held that the trial court acted illegally by not suspending the proceedings as
required under Section 329 CrPC (Now Section 368 of BNSS, 2023).
The Court emphasized that:
A person who cannot understand the trial cannot be tried.
The procedure is mandatory and not a mere formality.
The conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded with directions to comply
with Section 329 CrPC (Section 368 of BNSS, 2023).
Legal Principle:
A trial held in violation of Section 329 CrPC (Section 368 of BNSS, 2023) is vitiate.
The accused’s right to a fair trial includes the ability to understand the proceedings and
defend himself.
Courts must:
Get medical examination done.
Record findings based on medical and other evidence.
Suspend trial if accused is incapable.
Resume trial only when accused regains capacity.
Page 10 of 15
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 6027
Citation: (2012) 1 SCC 602
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J. Chelameswar
Facts of the Case
The accused, Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, was tried and convicted under Section 302 IPC
by the Sessions Court for committing murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. During
the trial, the defence raised the plea of insanity, claiming that the accused was suffering from
unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the offence and was therefore entitled to
protection under Section 84 IPC. The defence produced medical documents showing that
Shera Ram had received treatment for mental illness at a government hospital prior to the
commission of the offence.
The prosecution presented evidence showing that the accused:
Had a motive,
Planned the murder,
Chose the location and time,
And fled the scene after committing the crime.
The High Court, however, accepted the defence of insanity, overturned the conviction, and
acquitted the accused, relying heavily on the past medical history of mental illness.The State
of Rajasthan appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order and arguing
that the legal test for insanity had not been met.
Legal Issues
Whether Section 84 IPC (defence of legal insanity) was rightly applied by the High
Court in acquitting the accused?
Whether past mental illness or treatment alone is sufficient to establish unsoundness
of mind at the time of committing the offence?
7
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shera%20ram%20vs%20state%20of%20rajasthan
Page 11 of 15
What is the correct interpretation and application of Section 84 IPC and relevant
procedural safeguards under the CrPC, especially Sections 328 and 329 CrPC (Now
Section 367 and 368 of BNSS)?
Relevant Legal Provisions
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Now BNSS.2023
Section 328 CrPC (Now Section 367 of BNSS): Applies when an accused appears to be of
unsound mind before the trial begins. Court must inquire into the mental condition and
suspend proceedings if necessary.
Section 329 CrPC (Now Section 368 of BNSS): Applies when unsoundness of mind is
suspected during trial. Court must postpone the trial and have the accused examined by a
medical professional. If the accused is found incapable of making a defence, the trial is to be
suspended until recovery.
Judgment of Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal by the High Court.
It restored the conviction and sentence of the trial court.
Shera Ram was held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Conclusion
The State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram case is a landmark decision where the Supreme Court
clarified the strict legal test for insanity. It reaffirmed that mere diagnosis or treatment of
mental illness is not enough to escape criminal liability. Courts must assess mental capacity
at the time of the offence based on conduct, evidence, and legal standards.
Page 12 of 15
CONCLUSION
The trial of an accused person who is of unsound mind presents a complex interplay between
criminal liability, procedural fairness, and mental health rights. Indian criminal jurisprudence
has attempted to address this complexity through a framework—procedural provisions under
Sections 367 and 368 of the BNSS, which ensure that a person incapable of understanding
legal proceedings is not subjected to trial, and the substantive defence of insanity under
Section 22 of the BNS, which exempts criminal liability when the accused lacked the mental
capacity to understand the nature or wrongfulness of the act at the time of its commission.
However, practical challenges persist in the form of insufficient forensic psychiatric
infrastructure, delayed mental health evaluations, and inconsistent application of these legal
provisions by trial courts. Moreover, while courts rightly caution against the misuse of the
insanity defence, they must also ensure that genuinely mentally ill individuals are not
subjected to unjust punishment. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen institutional
mechanisms, provide proper training to legal and medical professionals, and ensure timely
and accurate mental assessments. A balanced approach that safeguards the rights of mentally
ill accused persons while ensuring justice for victims is crucial for upholding the integrity of
the criminal justice system and the constitutional mandate of a fair trial.
Page 13 of 15
BIBLOGRAPHY
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Bare Act
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bare Act
M. Laxmikant “Constitution of India”, 1950, 5th edition, TMH publication
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Section 22 (New provision analogous to
Section 84 IPC)
SCC Online; Indian kanoon site; India Code; legal sector reports, web resources
Page 14 of 15
WEBLIOGRAPHY
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/lunacy-or-unsound-mind-
mental-abnormality.php
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/229201/
https://lawcorner.in/provisions-of-cr-p-c-relating-to-the-persons-of-unsound-mind/
#Provisions_as_to_accused_person_of_unsound_mind
www.indlaw.com
Page 15 of 15
