BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING INSANITY AS A DEFENCE AND DIFFERFENCE BETWEEN LEGAL & MEDICAL INSANITY

AUTHOR – AJITESH KOCHHAR, STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA , UTTAR PRADESH

BEST CITATION – AJITESH KOCHHAR, BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING INSANITY AS A DEFENCE AND DIFFERFENCE BETWEEN LEGAL & MEDICAL INSANITY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (5) OF 2025, PG. 814-825, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

In criminal trial, the insanity as a defense is recognized since the time immemorial and has a long and fascinating history that stretches back centuries. During the ancient time, legal system recognized “mental illness” or “madness” could exempt someone from punishment. In Medieval England, the common law began evolving the idea that a person must have “Mens rea” to commit an offence and in case the same is lacking, the person should not be held criminally liable. One of the earliest cases recognizing insanity as a defense in English law was in 1724 when Edward Arnold tried to assassinate Lord Onslow and claimed insanity and this case sparked legal debate about mental insanity. Then comes the landmark case of Danial M’ Naghten[1] who attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister but instead killed his secretary. He claimed insanity and was found not guilty. This caused public uproar which results in M’ Naghten[1] Rule which became the foundation of modern insanity as a defense in many common law countries. This Rule emphasizes that if a person at the time of commission of offence is suffering from some mental defect or disease in mind and he did not know the nature and quality of act, he should not be punished.