Psychiatric Illness And Criminality In India

 

PC: http://itsgov.com/mental-illness-related-criminal-behavior-study-shows.html

The relationship between psychiatric illness and criminality is not typical in the general sense. The popular belief is that people with mental illnesses are more prone to commit acts of violence and aggression. The public perception of psychiatric patients as dangerous individuals is often rooted in the portrayal of criminals in the media as ‘crazy’ individuals. This bias extends all the way to the criminal justice system, where persons with mental illnesses get treated as criminals, arrested, charged, and jailed for a longer time in jail compared to the general population.

In a country like India, psychiatric illness is considered taboo. In India, most people do not even know the reason for the existence of a psychiatrist. For people here, any illness related to a social or a behavioural issue is simply not an illness at all. The only illnesses which are taken seriously are the ones that the body suffers from, and it has nothing to do with one's mental health. However, with changing trends people are getting informed about the significance of one's mental health. There are certain laws in India which deal with various aspects of psychiatric illnesses and other related issues.[1]

Now the question arises what exactly does psychiatric illness refers to?

Psychiatric illness or mental disorder refers to

“....Clinically significant behavioural or psychological syndrome or pattern that occur in an individual. It is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. It must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. It is a manifestation of a behavioural, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual and is neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual. Though no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of mental disorder. The concept of mental disorder (like many other concepts in medicine and science) lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations."[2]

This topic is of immense importance not only in terms of reducing societal crimes, but also in reducing the pain and agony suffered by these people. The relationship between mental illness and the law is very dynamic and ever-changing. In India, however, there is no adequate amount of research done on this topic.

LEGAL ASPECT OF THE PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS AND CRIMINALITY SINCE ANCIENT INDIA:

During the period when the British were ruling over India, a large number of laws were enacted in quick succession for controlling the care and treatment of mentally ill persons in British India. These laws were:

      I.          The Lunacy (Supreme Courts) Act, 1858

    II.          The Lunacy (District Courts) Act, 1858

  III.          The Indian Lunatic Asylum Act, 1858 (with amendments passed in 1886 and 1889)

  IV.          The Military Lunatic Acts, 1877.

Other provisions in India which deal with psychiatric illness are as follows:

Mental Health Act, 1987:

Though a draft of the Mental Health Bill was submitted in 1950, it finally came to be enacted in 1987. The main focus of the Act was on defining mental illness in a progressive way, and introducing the modern concept of their treatment, with stress on care and treatment, rather than on custody. This Act also focused on the establishment of the Central/State Mental Health Authority to regulate and supervise the psychiatric hospitals/nursing homes and to advise Central/State Governments on matters related to mental health. In this Act, provisions related to admission to psychiatric hospital/nursing homes in special circumstances were also laid down. Provisions relating to voluntary admission and admission on the reception orders were retained. It further specified the role of the Police and the Magistrate to deal with cases of wandering persons with mental illnesses (PMI), and the PMI who were treated cruelly. In this Act, the main emphasis was laid on:

·       Protection of human rights of PMI.

·       Guardianship and Management of properties of PMI.

·       Provisions of penalties in case of breach of provisions of the Act.

National Trust Act, 1999:

This Act was enacted in the year 1999 for the welfare of persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and multiple disabilities, to enable and empower them to live independently, and close to the community to which they belong, and to facilitate the realization of equal opportunities, and ensure protection of their rights. The management of properties of PMI is supposed to be covered under the amended Act.

Marriage and Divorce Laws:

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, conditions with respect to mental disorders, which must be fulfilled before the marriage is solemnized under the Act, are as follows.

      I.          Neither party should be incapable of giving a valid consent as a consequence of unsoundness of mind.

    II.          Even if capable of giving consent, neither party should suffer from mental disorders of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage, and the procreation of children.

  III.          Neither party should suffer from recurrent attacks of insanity.[3]

The Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the act of a person of unsound mind.

“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.”

For easy understanding, section 84 of the IPC can be divided into two broad categories, namely- major criteria (medical requirement of mental illness) and minor criteria (loss of reasoning requirement). Major criteria (mental illness requirement) mean the person must be suffering from mental illness during the commission of the act. Minor criteria (loss of reasoning requirement) mean the person is:

      I.          Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or

    II.          Incapable of knowing his act is wrong, or

  III.          Incapable of knowing it is contrary to law.

Both major (mental illness) and minor (loss of reasoning) criteria constitute legal insanity.

Section 84 IPC, clearly embodies certain fundamental maxims of criminal jurisprudence, that is,

·       Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention), and

·       Furiosi nulla voluntas est (a person with mental illness has no free will).

This means that an act does not constitute a crime unless it is done with a guilty intention called mens rea. Hence, Section 84 IPC fastens no culpability on persons with mental illness because they can have no rational thinking or the necessary guilty intent. [4]

Case Illustration To Explain Psychiatric Illness And Criminality In India:

Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

In this case, the appellant was a police constable and was married to one Surekha in the year 1987, and they both had a daughter. On April 24, 1994, the couple had a quarrel in the morning and later in the day while Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her with a grinding stone. Surekha was found dead, and the appellant was immediately taken to the police quarter guard. In this case, the appellant was found guilty by the Sessions Court for the offence defined under section 302 of IPC, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. So the appellant appealed to the High Court against his conviction, and the sentence was dismissed by the High Court and later an appeal was filed on a grant of leave.

In this case, the defence of insanity was invoked by the appellant. Dr. Shyamla Pappu appeared as amicus curie and argued that the appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of committing the offence, and was entitled to benefit of the general exception under section 84 of IPC. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant provided evidence that showed he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was taking treatment for the same, as prescribed by the government hospital since November 1992. He was taken to the hospital twenty-five times for his ailment. Even his father had suffered from the same disease and had run away from home at the age of sixty-five.

After providing enough proof that the appellant had a family history of psychiatric illness, and he was also suffering from same, it was held by the Court that the appellant had committed crime not in the fist of anger, but under the influence of his disease. The Court further believed that the appellant had proved the requisite circumstances, as required by section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit under section 84 of IPC. Hence, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was set at liberty.  [5]

CONCLUSION:

The understanding of psychiatric illness with respect to criminality is an evolving field. Though it is very difficult to prove and consider the aspect of psychiatric illness while battling for justice, efforts are continuously being made to improve this situation. However, the maxim of ‘Let a hundred guilty be acquitted, but one innocent should not be convicted’ should always prevail.

BY

SHUBHANGI ZITE

III B.A.LL.B.

ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

---

[1] S.B. Math, C.N. Kumar, S. Moirangthem, Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future, 4 Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 381, 384 (2015).

[2] D.J. Stein, K.A. Phillips, D. Bolton, K.W. Fulford, J.Z. Sadler, K.S. Kendler, What is a mental/psychiatric disorder?, 11 Psychological Medicine 40, (2010).

[3] S. 5(2), Indian Penal Code 1860.

[4]C.L. Narayan, D. Shikha, Indian legal system and mental health, Suppl 2(55) Indian Journal of Psychiatry 177, 181 (2013).

 

[5] Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002)7 SCC 748.