In Devidas Loka Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2018 SC 3093), the court held that the nature of the mental illness, its treatment, and its correlation with the offense committed are crucial factors to consider when evaluating claims of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC (and thus Section 22 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

Kinds of Insanity

1. Dementia Naturalis: Refers to individuals who are insane from birth.
2. Dementia Accidentialis: Refers to individuals who become insane after birth.

If the conditions of Section 84 of the IPC ( now Section 22 of the BNS, 2023) are satisfied, the defence of insanity will be available in both scenarios.

Right and Wrong Test (McNaughten Rule)

The McNaughten Rules, established in the case of R. vs. Daniel McNaughten (1843), set the groundwork for assessing the insanity defence. In this case, McNaughten shot Edward Drummond, believing he was targeting Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel due to an insane delusion. The House of Lords articulated principles that became the McNaughten Rules, including:

1. Every individual is presumed sane and responsible for their actions unless proven otherwise.

2. To establish the defence of insanity, it must be shown that, at the time of the crime, the individual was so insane as to be unaware of the nature and quality of their act, or if they were aware, did not understand that it was wrong.

3. The test for determining wrongfulness is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong concerning the specific act committed, rather than in an abstract or general sense.

SECTION 23: ACT OF A PERSON INCAPABLE OF JUDGMENT BY REASON OF INTOXICATION CAUSED AGAINST HIS WILL

Section 23 stipulates that an act is not an offense if committed by a person who, due to intoxication, is unable to understand the nature of the act or recognize that it is wrong or contrary to law, provided that the intoxicating substance was administered without their knowledge or against their will.

To successfully claim the defence of involuntary intoxication under Section 23 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, it must be established that the intoxication was without the individual's knowledge or against their will. Furthermore, the intoxication must be severe enough to impair their ability to understand the nature of their act or recognize its wrongfulness.

Protection under Section 23 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 23 specifically provides a defence for involuntary intoxication that renders an individual incapable of understanding their actions. If a person is involuntarily intoxicated yet retains the capacity to comprehend the offense committed, they will not qualify for this defence. Section 23 acts as a complete defence in the appropriate circumstances.

In Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Beard (1920) AC 479, Lord Birkenhead noted that an individual cannot be convicted for an offense requiring specific intent if that intent was not formed due to intoxication. The standard for criminal responsibility in cases of intoxication differs from that in insanity under Section 84 of the IPC (and Section 22 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

SECTION 24: OFFENSE REQUIRING A PARTICULAR INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE COMMITTED BY ONE WHO IS INTOXICATED

Section 24 addresses situations where an act is only considered an offense if committed with specific intent or knowledge. In such cases, a person acting while intoxicated will be treated as possessing the same knowledge they would have had if sober, unless the intoxication was involuntary.

This section provides a partial defence. It is generally understood that intent cannot be presumed; it must be established based on the facts and circumstances of each case. If an individual, despite their intoxication, understands the consequences of their actions, it can be presumed that they intended the resultant outcomes.

In Basdev vs. State of Pepsu (AIR 1956 SC 488), the Supreme Court established the following guidelines regarding intoxication:

1. A lack of understanding concerning the nature and consequences of an act can serve as a defence, whether due to drunkenness or other reasons.

2. Evidence of intoxication that renders the accused incapable of forming specific intent should be duly considered.

3. However, evidence of intoxication that does not demonstrate incapacity to form the requisite intent does not negate the presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of their actions.

Defence of Drunkenness

In Rex vs. Meade (1909) 1 K.B. 895, the accused violently attacked his wife, resulting in her death. The defence of drunkenness was raised, and the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that the jury should consider returning a verdict of manslaughter if the accused was so intoxicated that they did not realize their actions were dangerous.

Conclusion

The provisions surrounding the acts of individuals with unsound mind and those incapacitated by involuntary intoxication within The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, establish essential legal protections for individuals whose mental state impairs their understanding of their actions. While these defences highlight the importance of mental health in the legal context, they also underscore personal responsibility, especially concerning voluntary intoxication. Courts will continue to interpret these provisions within the framework of individual circumstances, public safety, and the principles of justice.

The provisions in The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, related to individuals with unsound minds and those incapacitated by involuntary intoxication provide vital legal safeguards for those whose mental state impairs their understanding of their actions. These defences highlight the importance of mental health in the legal system while also highlighting personal responsibility, particularly regarding voluntary intoxication. Courts will continue to interpret these laws based on the specifics of each case, balancing individual circumstances with public safety and justice.