Act of a person of unsound mind
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 84, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 22 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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
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: s.84 is legal insanity at the time of the act (incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness), not a medical diagnosis.
-
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary
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.
-
Pushparajan @ Pushpan vs State of Kerala
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.
-
State vs Lalit Narain
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.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code : the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was …
-
… That, the Appellant be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut the Prosecution evidence against him, by exhibiting the documents that have been appended to the application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., to enable him to obtain the exemption provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently objects to the Petition on grounds that the documentary evidence furnished High Court of Sikkim Record of proceedings by the Appellant does not indicate that at the time of the commission of the offence the Appellant was …
-
… In D.G. Thakker v. State of Gujarat it was laid down that "there is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence – oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings". 13. If from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt …
Questions about Section 84
What have the courts held on Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code?
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (06 Jan 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.84 is legal insanity at the time of the act (incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness), not a medical diagnosis. 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 84 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 84, section 84 IPC, section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 22 (Act of a person of unsound mind), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called insanity defence or unsoundness of mind, and cited as IPC 84, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.