LawSchools99 logoLawSchools99
Sign inGet Started — ₹89
Mumbai University · FY LLB · Sem II
Ravi, a 35-year-old man with a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, believed that his neighbor was an alien sent to h
2 min read
Ravi, a 35-year-old man with a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, believed that his neighbor was an alien sent to harm him. Under the delusion that he was defending himself from imminent attack, Ravi stabbed his neighbour with a kitchen knife. A psychiatric evaluation confirmed that he was suffering from a mental disorder that impaired his understanding of reality at the time of the incident.
Q3Situational QuestionsAttempt any 2 out of 4 · 6 marks each · Total: 12 marks2025
Q3.16 MarksRavi, a 35-year-old man with a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, believed that his neighbor was an alien sent to harm him. Under the delusion that he was defending himself from imminent attack, Ravi stabbed his neighbour with a kitchen knife. A psychiatric evaluation confirmed that he was suffering from a mental disorder that impaired his understanding of reality at the time of the incident.
Issues Raised

(a) Can it be established that Ravi was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong?
(b) Provide the name of relevant case law.
(c) What is the defence available for Ravi under BNS 2023?

(a) Incapacity to know the nature or wrongfulness of the act

Yes, based on the facts, it can be established that Ravi was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. Under BNS S22, nothing is an offence 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 the act is either wrong or contrary to law.

The test involves two limbs:

  • Limb 1: Was the accused incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act? (i.e., did he know he was stabbing a person?)
  • Limb 2: If he knew the nature of the act, did he know it was wrong or contrary to law?

Ravi's paranoid schizophrenia caused him to believe his neighbour was an alien about to harm him. His delusion meant he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his act. The psychiatric evaluation provides clinical confirmation. Therefore, Ravi satisfies the test under BNS S22 — he was incapable of knowing that his act was wrong or contrary to law.

(b) Relevant Case Law

M'Naghten's Case (1843) — Daniel M'Naghten killed the secretary of the British PM under the delusion he was being persecuted. The House of Lords established the M'Naghten Rules: the accused must prove that at the time of the act he was suffering from such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, that he did not know the nature/quality of the act, or did not know it was wrong. These rules directly inform BNS S22.
Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P. (2008) — SC held that "unsoundness of mind" under S84 IPC (now S22 BNS) means legal insanity, not medical insanity. The accused must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act at the very time of commission.

(c) Defence Available under BNS 2023

The defence of Unsoundness of Mind (Legal Insanity) under BNS S22 is available to Ravi. Since psychiatric evidence confirms that his mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing his act was wrong at the time, he is entitled to a finding of not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind. The court may order his safe custody under BNS S369 (corresponding to CrPC S335) for observation and treatment.