Insanity, Infancy, Intoxication; as Defenses available to the Criminals

Any deed or gesture or omission which add up to misdeed and is penalized by the law of the land can be basically categorized as crime. Any person who oversteps the law, in other words, any individual who is involved in any illegal activity are Criminals.

In India, every crime is a crime defined under Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

No doubt, every criminal is punished for the offence committed but it may vary from case to case. It isn't important that an individual constantly gets rebuffed for a wrongdoing which he/she had committed. Initially, every criminal is given legal aid and is given an equal opportunity to prove himself innocent because it is a basic principle or presumption in criminal law that every individual is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Basically, for a crime it is necessary to have mens rea which means criminal intent, while a person lacking criminal intent may avail the defenses. There are certain defenses available in the IPC itself which can prove criminal’s innocence and these are recognized from section 76 to 106. By tendering a legally recognized defense to a criminal conduct a person can escape criminal liability. And some of them are:

Insanity; Mental illness of such a serious nature, that an individual can't recognize dream from the real world, can't lead her/his undertakings because of psychosis, or is dependent upon wild hasty conduct. To utilize insanity as a lawful reason, the respondent needs to show that he/she came up short on the ability to comprehend that the demonstration wasn't right, or the ability to comprehend the idea of the demonstration. The rationale of the insanity as a barrier returns to the possibility of mens rea and culpability.

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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[1]

So, it falls upon the charged to demonstrate his insanity at the hour of offense. It should be demonstrated by the accused that on the grounds that for the accused’s unsoundness for mind, he was unequipped for knowing the idea of the demonstration or that the demonstration was in opposition to arrangements of law, or wasn't right.

Infancy; An agreed guard to a criminal or civil charge or authorization of an agreement that, by reason of age, an individual didn't have adequate mental ability to be considered legitimately answerable for their activities.

In common law, children were commonly viewed as incapable for carrying out wrongdoings. In any case, various assumptions have commonly been applied, contingent on the age of the child. By and large, it is decisively assumed that a child less than seven can't frame a criminal mens rea and, in this manner, a child that youthful can't be indicted for a wrongdoing. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen are likewise assumed unequipped for framing criminal mens rea. Nonetheless, this assumption is rebuttable. Accordingly, despite the fact that the law inclines from indicting children between the ages of seven and fourteen, the arraignment can in any case acquire a conviction by demonstrating that the kid comprehended what he was doing and realized that what he was doing wasn't right.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.[2] Not only this, but also, Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.[3]

Intoxication; A state wherein an individual's typical ability to act or reason is repressed by liquor or medications.

Generally, an intoxicated individual is unequipped for going about as a standard, judicious and careful individual would act under comparable conditions. In an acknowledgment of this factor, the law may enable intoxication to be utilized as a guard to specific wrongdoings. In other words, inebriation is a guard to explicit purpose violations. The hidden basis is that the inebriated individual can't have the essential mental state important to build up the offence.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.[4] Also, In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will.[5]

No doubt, it is a mandate to punish the law breakers in the society. But it is very important to know that these criminals should have guilty mind. Also, no punishment should be given to the innocent, therefore it was important to provide certain defenses which could be exercised when such crimes are committed without mens rea. Insanity, as seen above, Intoxication and Infancy are some of a kind which help dispense the justice in a fair way. But these defenses mainly depend upon facts and circumstances.

Profile of the Author;

Ms. Kanika Wadhwani is a 3rd year student of Amity Law School, Amity University Rajasthan.

[1] Section 84 IPC, 1860; Act of a person of unsound mind.

[2] Section 82 of IPC, 1860: Act of a child under seven years of age.

[3] Section 83 of IPC, 1860: Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.

[4] Section 85 of IPC, 1860: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.

[5] Section 86 of IPC, 1860: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.