Defenses: Insanity, Intoxication, Duress, And Necessity
I. Introduction
In criminal law, a defendant may avoid liability by proving that their act was excusable or justified due to certain conditions. These defenses are called “excusable defenses” or justifications.
Key defenses:
Insanity – Mental incapacity.
Intoxication – Involuntary or lack of capacity due to substances.
Duress – Coercion by threat of death or serious harm.
Necessity – Compulsion by circumstances to prevent greater harm.
Each defense has specific legal requirements and limitations, as recognized by courts.
II. Insanity
1. Legal Principle
Indian Penal Code Section 84: “Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act due to unsoundness of mind.”
M’Naghten Rule: Widely adopted test – the accused must not know:
The nature of the act; or
That it was wrong or contrary to law.
2. Case Laws
Case 1: McNaughton Case (1843, UK)
Laid down the M’Naghten rules for insanity.
Defendant could not distinguish right from wrong due to mental disorder.
Principle: Insanity is judged at time of offense.
Case 2: R v. Kemp (1957, UK)
Defendant suffered arteriosclerosis leading to violence.
Held: Disease affecting mind, not memory or reasoning, may still constitute insanity.
Principle: Mental disease need not impair intellectual knowledge completely.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006, India)
Defendant claimed mental instability.
Court held that medical evidence is crucial, and mere claim of insanity is insufficient.
Case 4: Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976)
Defendant committed murder in a psychotic state.
Held: Conviction set aside due to unsoundness of mind at the time of offense.
III. Intoxication
1. Legal Principle
Voluntary intoxication: Generally not a defense for crimes of basic intent (murder, theft).
Involuntary intoxication: May be a defense if it renders the person incapable of forming mens rea.
IPC does not specifically codify intoxication, but courts interpret it under general principles of criminal liability.
2. Case Laws
Case 1: DPP v. Beard (1920, UK)
Defendant involuntarily intoxicated, killed a person.
Held: Lack of intention due to intoxication may negate mens rea.
Case 2: R v. Kingston (UK, 1994)
Defendant spiked with drugs but acted on pre-existing intent.
Held: Intention present despite intoxication → no defense.
Case 3: K. T. Moorthy v. State of Kerala (1998, India)
Defendant claimed intoxication at time of assault.
Court held: Voluntary intoxication cannot excuse crime, only may reduce liability for specific intent.
IV. Duress
1. Legal Principle
Duress arises when a person commits a crime under threat of death or serious harm.
Key points:
Threat must be immediate and unavoidable.
Threat must be of death or serious bodily harm.
Cannot be claimed for murder in most jurisdictions.
2. Case Laws
Case 1: R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884, UK)
Sailors killed a cabin boy under extreme starvation.
Held: Necessity cannot justify murder.
Principle: Duress cannot excuse taking an innocent life.
Case 2: R v. Valderrama-Vega (1985, UK)
Defendant involved in drug trafficking due to threats.
Held: Duress reduced sentence, but full defense requires clear evidence of threat.
Case 3: Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1965, India)
Accused claimed coercion by armed men.
Court held: Duress acceptable as defense if threat is immediate and compelling.
V. Necessity
1. Legal Principle
Necessity arises when a person commits an act to prevent a greater harm, even if illegal.
Key test (Salomon v. United Kingdom):
Harm caused is less than harm avoided.
Act is proportionate to emergency.
No legal alternative available.
2. Case Laws
Case 1: R v. Wigglesworth (1987, UK)
Defendant broke into a cabin to escape flood.
Held: Necessity is a valid defense if act prevents greater harm.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath Rao (1973, India)
Defendant acted illegally to prevent imminent disaster.
Court accepted necessity as justification to protect life/property.
Case 3: In re F. (1990, UK)
Medical necessity: Unlawful surgery to save life.
Held: Necessity justified act, as it prevented serious harm.
VI. Comparative Table of Defenses
| Defense | Legal Basis | Key Test | Limitation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insanity | IPC Sec 84 | M’Naghten rule – incapacity to know right/wrong | Only mental disease; not voluntary conduct | Ram Ratan v. MP |
| Intoxication | Common law principles | Negates mens rea if involuntary | Voluntary intoxication not defense for basic intent crimes | DPP v. Beard |
| Duress | Common law / IPC interpretation | Threat of death/serious harm | Cannot excuse murder | R v. Dudley & Stephens |
| Necessity | Common law | Act prevents greater harm, proportional | Harm caused must be less than avoided | R v. Wigglesworth |
VII. Key Principles
Burden of Proof: Defendant must prove defense on preponderance of evidence.
Actus Reus vs Mens Rea: Most defenses target mens rea (intention), not actus reus (action).
Limits of Defense:
Duress cannot excuse murder.
Voluntary intoxication is rarely accepted.
Judicial Scrutiny: Courts require medical, forensic, or credible evidence.
Public Policy: Defenses must balance individual excuse vs societal protection.
VIII. Conclusion
Insanity, Intoxication, Duress, and Necessity are important defenses but subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
Insanity: Lack of mental capacity at the time of offense.
Intoxication: Only involuntary intoxication may excuse.
Duress: Threat must be immediate and compelling, cannot excuse murder.
Necessity: Acts justified to prevent greater harm.
Landmark cases like McNaughton, Dudley & Stephens, Ram Ratan, DPP v. Beard, R v. Wigglesworth have shaped modern criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments