Act of a person of unsound mind
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 22, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 84 Act of a person of unsound mind Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand
Decided under Indian Penal Code 84, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2011-01-06 (not same-date order-8 ROP). Bedi/Sathasivam/C.K. Prasad, Crl A 177/2006. IPC 84 is legal insanity, not medical insanity: the accused must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law at the time of the act. Burden on the accused is preponderance of probabilities (Dahyabhai). Schizophrenia history without that incapacity at the moment of the crime does not attract s.84. Map IPC 84 and successor BNS 22.
On this section: Successor of IPC 84 (mapping.csv near-identical). Legal-insanity teaching carries to BNS 22.
-
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 84, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the test to be applied is legal insanity, not medical insanity. Legal insanity requires incapacity to know the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The burden on the accused is to establish this on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial point of time is the moment of commission of the offense. Evidence of conduct before, during, and after the offense, combined with medical evidence of mental disorder, is relevant in determining legal insanity. If credible medical evidence establishes mental disorder at the time of the offense, and the accused subsequently becomes fit to stand trial, this is indicative of prior insanity. The trial court and appellate court must apply a preponderance of probabilities standard and not reject the insanity defense merely because the nature of the act appears intentional or because some witnesses did not observe abnormality.
On this section: Core provision establishing that nothing is an offense if done by a person of unsound mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The Court extensively analyzed this provision, distinguishing legal from medical insanity and establishing the test for its application.
-
State vs Lalit Narain
Decided under Indian Penal Code 84, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A reference under Section 432 Criminal Procedure Code can only be made when a case involves a question as to the validity of an Act or Ordinance, the determination of which is necessary for disposal of the case, and the court must be of opinion that such Act is invalid or inoperative but has not been so declared by the High Court or Supreme Court. The mere fact that an accused is mentally unfit to stand trial, lacks family support, or that care infrastructure is inadequate does not constitute grounds for reference under Section 432 CrPC. Instead, such situations must be dealt with under the comprehensive procedure provided in Sections 464-475 CrPC, which specifically address the trial of persons of unsound mind. Trial courts cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC or ask the High Court to exercise such powers; such powers are inherent to the High Court itself.
On this section: Provides the insanity defense. Court noted that when an accused appears sound at trial but may have been unsound at time of offense, the Magistrate must determine facts with reference to Section 84 IPC.
-
Pushparajan @ Pushpan vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 84, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is acquitted on grounds of insanity under Section 84 I.P.C., the Sessions Court must comply with Section 335 Cr.P.C. by: (1) Directing detention in safe custody in a mental health centre subject to a relative or friend making an application and volunteering security; (2) Reporting to the Government the action taken under Section 335(1) Cr.P.C.; and (3) Providing a clear pathway for release to a relative or friend willing to offer security under Section 335(3) Cr.P.C. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements renders the detention order defective and subject to quashing by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Insanity defense - the basis for acquittal of the accused. The court recognized that the accused was entitled to acquittal under this section but noted that post-acquittal detention procedures must still comply with statutory requirements.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 22
What have the courts held on Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (06 Jan 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 84, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 84 (mapping.csv near-identical). Legal-insanity teaching carries to BNS 22. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 22, section 22 BNS, section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (06 Jan 2011).
What should I read with Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 84 (Act of a person of unsound mind), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called insanity defence or unsoundness of mind, and cited as BNS 22, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.