This article has been written by Pranay Dhakad from Alliance School of Law

Introduction

The concept of diminished responsibility, a potential defense in criminal cases, asserts that although a defendant committed a crime, their mental state at the time of the offense diminished their culpability.

This complex legal doctrine has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding its introduction in jurisdictions like India, where the current framework relies solely on the insanity defense.

Partial Defence

Diminished capacity operates as a partial defense in cases where the defendant’s state of mind is crucial for charges. For instance, in situations where the felony murder rule is not applicable, proving first-degree murder necessitates the state to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted with premeditation, deliberation, and the specific intent to kill—all three being essential elements.

If evidence emerges, creating a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s capacity to premeditate, deliberate, or form the specific intent to kill due to mental illness or a “defect,” the state cannot convict the defendant of first-degree murder. This, however, doesn’t guarantee acquittal, as the defendant may still face conviction for second-degree murder, requiring only a demonstration of general malice.

Understanding Diminished Responsibility

Diminished responsibility differs from insanity defense in several key ways. Insanity, as defined in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), exempts an individual from criminal liability if they lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions.

This test, based on the M’Naghten rules, is quite narrow and often excludes individuals with mental illnesses who may still have some understanding of their actions but were impaired in their ability to control their impulses or conform to legal norms.

Diminished responsibility, on the other hand, acknowledges that mental illness can exist on a spectrum and can impair an individual’s cognitive and behavioral functioning to varying degrees. It allows for a reduction in charges or sentences based on the severity of the mental impairment and its influence on the crime committed.

Both in criminal law and daily life, there’s a common acknowledgment of the moral principle that blaming or punishing someone for an act is deemed unfair unless they had both the ability and opportunity to avoid or refrain from it.

History

The concept of “diminished responsibility,” which was introduced into English law by section 2 of the Homicide Act, 1957, had previously been a part of Scottish law for nearly nearly a hundred years.

Similar provisions, though not always under this name, exist in many European and American legal systems; the essence of these laws is that they provide for mitigation of punishment in eases in which the accused is mentally abnormal in some way, though not insane.

Arguments for Introducing Diminished Responsibility in India

Proponents of introducing diminished responsibility in India highlight several benefits include:

Addressing the limitations of the insanity defense:

The current “all-or-nothing” approach of the insanity defense often fails to consider the nuances of mental illness. Individuals with mild to moderate mental illnesses may be deemed responsible for their actions even if their mental state significantly impacted their decision-making and behavior.

Ensuring fair and proportionate sentences:

Diminished responsibility can provide a more just outcome by reducing sentences for individuals whose mental state partially mitigated their culpability. This aligns with the principle of proportional punishment, which seeks to match the severity of the sentence to the degree of blameworthiness of the offender.

Promoting rehabilitation and treatment:

By acknowledging the role of mental illness in criminal behavior, diminished responsibility can encourage courts to impose sentences that focus on rehabilitation and treatment rather than solely on punishment. This can lead to better outcomes for individuals with mental illness and reduce the risk of recidivism.

Arguments against Introducing Diminished Responsibility in India

Despite the potential benefits, introducing diminished responsibility also faces significant challenges:

Complexity and subjectivity:

Assessing the degree of mental impairment and its impact on the crime can be complex and subjective. This could lead to inconsistent application of the defense and potentially result in unfair outcomes for defendants.

Potential for misuse:

The defense could be misused by defendants seeking to avoid full responsibility for their actions, even when their mental impairment may have been minimal. This could undermine the credibility of the defense and erode public trust in the legal system.

Resource limitations:

Implementing and administering diminished responsibility effectively requires significant resources for training legal and mental health professionals, conducting evaluations, and potentially establishing specialized courts or treatment programs.

The Indian Legal Landscape and Potential Reforms

The Indian legal system currently lacks a formal defense of diminished responsibility. However, courts have occasionally shown willingness to consider the role of mental illness in sentencing decisions, relying on exceptions within the IPC or mitigating factors.

This approach, however, lacks the clarity and consistency offered by a codified diminished responsibility defense. Several proposals have been made for introducing diminished responsibility in India, including:

• Amending the IPC to include a specific provision for diminished responsibility: This would provide a clear legal framework for the defense and ensure its consistent application across the country.
• Developing guidelines for assessing mental impairment and its impact on criminal responsibility: This would help guide legal and mental health professionals in conducting evaluations and ensure that the defense is applied fairly and accurately.
• Establishing specialized courts or programs for offenders with mental illness: This could provide tailored interventions and support to address the underlying mental health issues and reduce the risk of re-offending.

In a review petition, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice Gogoi, affirmed the principle of Diminished Responsibility in the 2000 Dharmapuri bus burning case. The bench commuted the death penalty, previously imposed by the Salem district court and upheld by the Madras High Court and another Supreme Court bench, to life imprisonment for three AIADMK party activists.

These individuals had set fire to a fully occupied bus, resulting in the tragic death of three college girls and burn injuries to 16 others. The incident occurred during a mob frenzy protesting Jayalalithaa’s conviction in the Pleasant Stay hotel case, setting a legal precedent.

To establish a defense of diminished responsibility, a defendant must demonstrate the presence of a recognized condition significantly impairing their mind, rendering them incapable of exercising self-control. Mere affliction by such a condition is insufficient; it must be the contributory factor leading to the unlawful killing, forming the causative link in assessing the case.

Scottish Law

In the 1795 trial of Sir Archibald Gordon Kinloch for the murder of his brother Sir Francis Kinloch, 6th baronet of Gilmerton, presided over by Robert McQueen, Lord Braxfield, an early instance of recognizing diminished responsibility emerged. Despite being found guilty and typically facing a death sentence, Kinloch received a life imprisonment verdict.

Remarkably, just two days after the ruling on July 17, 1795, he was released under the care of Dr. William Farquharson, residing in a secure environment at the doctor’s own house. Throughout the 20th century, there was a gradual narrowing of mental conditions falling under the umbrella of diminished responsibility in court proceedings.

United Kingdom

Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 states: (1) Where a person kills or is party to a killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which –

(a) arose from a medical condition

(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and

(c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

(1A) Those things are –

(a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct;

(b) to form a rational judgment;

(c) to exercise self-control.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides and explanation of D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct

Inthe recent case of R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61 the Supreme Court of United Kingdom was asked to clarify the meaning of the word ‘substantially’ which has been the subject of inconsistent variation over the years. In this case, the defendant stabbed his partner to death in a frenzied knife attack having argued with her on and off for much of the day.

Psychiatrists agreed that that there was abnormality of the mind but disagreed as to its cause. The Court held that the meaning of “substantial” was an “impairment of consequence or weight” and not “any impairment which is greater than merely trivial”.

In this case, the defendant had failed to discharge the burden of whether or not the impairment was the significant contributory factor of the death and hence the question of whether such impairment was ‘substantial’ was not actually material to the case and the appeal was dismissed.

Australia

Currently, diminished responsibility serves as a statutory partial defense in various Australian jurisdictions, applicable exclusively in murder cases with the aim of mitigating the offense to manslaughter. In Australia, concerns regarding sentencing have arisen, particularly regarding the weight assigned to community protection in sentencing individuals convicted of manslaughter based on diminished responsibility.

In New South Wales (NSW), the partial defense of ‘diminished responsibility’ was substituted with the partial defense of “substantial impairment” in 1998. The defendant bears the burden of proving this defense on the balance of probabilities. Three conditions must be met: first, the defendant must have been experiencing an abnormality of the mind at the time of the actions causing death; refer to the case of Byrne for the definition of ‘abnormality of the mind.’ Second, this abnormality must result from an underlying condition. Third, the impairment must be substantial enough to justify reducing liability for murder to manslaughter.

Conclusion

Introducing diminished responsibility in India presents a complex and multifaceted issue with compelling arguments on both sides. While concerns about potential misuse and resource limitations cannot be ignored, the potential benefits of a more nuanced and humane approach to criminal justice cannot be overlooked. Careful consideration of international models, thorough legal drafting, and robust implementation strategies are crucial if India seeks to incorporate this defense into its legal framework.

Thus, In law diminished responsibility is a defence which states that someone is not mentally well enough to be totally responsible for their crime.

References

• Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (3rd Edition, 2012)
• Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law and Its Processes (11th Edition, 2011)
• S.P. Sharma, Criminal Law in India (12th Edition, 2022)
• Michael Perlin, Diminished Responsibility and the Criminal Law (2004)
• Peter Hodgkinson and Richard J. Bonnie, Diminished Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis (2012)
• Law Commission of India, Report No. 262 (2018): Review of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
• National Center for State Courts, Mental Health Courts: Transforming Justice for People with Mental Illness (2016)
• American Psychiatric Association, The Insanity Defense: A Critical Look at Its History, Use, and Future (2014)
• John Monahan, The Myth of the Forensic Insanity Defense (2003)
• Laura I. Steinberg and Christopher Slobogin, The Role of Mental Health Professionals in the Criminal Justice System (2012)
• Stephen J. Morse, The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: An Empirical Failure (1994)
• R.K. Anand, The Law of Insanity and Mental Deficiency in India (1972)
• B.B. Singh, The Law of Criminal Responsibility in India (2008)
• P.N. Dubashi, Diminished Responsibility: A Need for Reform in Indian Criminal Law (2017)
• P.S. Narasimha, Mental Illness and Criminal Responsibility: The Indian Perspective (2019)