Unsoundness of Mind: Meaning, Reasons, Case Laws

Unsoundness of Mind

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:40 PM IST

To form a Contract both the parties to a Contract should be eligible to enter into a contract under Criminal Law. Certain essential elements should be considered to form a valid contract. The requirements like the Party to a Contract shouldn’t be minor, there should be Free Consent nothing should be forced, and the object on which the contract is based shouldn’t be illegal. One of the essentials is that the party forming a contract shouldn’t be of unsound mind.

This Story also Contains

What is a Sound Mind?
Meaning of Unsoundness of Mind
Views on Unsoundness of Mind
Reasons for Unsoundness of Mind
Undsoundess of Mind under IPC
The onus to Prove Unsoundness of Mind
Unsoundness of Mind as a Ground for Divorce
Section 84 of Unsoundness of Mind
Unsoundness of Mind Case Laws
Conclusion

Unsoundness of Mind

What is a Sound Mind?

"A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interests," states Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Hence, a person who is of sound mind is eligible to enter into a contract as that person is eligible to take decisions by himself and in the case of a Sound mind no other person can influence him or force him to make decisions or enter into a Contract Law.

Meaning of Unsoundness of Mind

A person who lacks the mental capacity to think or comprehend the consequences of their actions is considered to be of unsound mind, as defined under the Indian Contract Act of 1872. A party who is of sound mind may elect to void an agreement executed by someone who is not, per Section 12 of the Act. To make an agreement voidable, it must be proven that the mentally incapable person was unable to understand the terms and consequences of the agreement at the time it was made.

This provision prevents contracts from being used to exploit individuals with mental illnesses. A contract that a mentally incompetent person signs is deemed void, even when neither party stands to benefit from it. A mad person's property is always responsible.

Views on Unsoundness of Mind

English View on Unsoundness of Mind

Three categories apply to mental disability under English law: First, section 4 of the Mental Health Act of 1983 applies to persons whose mental health is so bad that the court has jurisdiction over their matters. Any alleged contracts created by the individual will not be enforced against them, as the court effectively assumes the individual's capacity to establish contracts.

Second, there are people whose mental health is so compromised that they are unable to understand the nature of the transaction they are performing, even if they are not under the court's jurisdiction. Until it can be demonstrated that the other party knew of the incapacity, contracts entered into by persons in such circumstances are enforceable against them.

Thirdly, groups are made up of individuals who are competent to comprehend the transaction but are more likely to enter into a disadvantageous contract due to a mental illness. These individuals' contracts are regarded as legally binding unless they violate the prohibition against undue influence.

A person of unsound mind is therefore competent to contract under English law, however, he may escape one if he can convince the judge that he was incapable of understanding the terms of the agreement and that the other party was aware of this. He can choose to have the contract voided at that point. If he attests to it, then it becomes legally binding against him.

Indian View on Unsoundness of Mind

There are differences between the laws of England and India. However, in India, an agreement made by a minor is considered to be that of a person of unsound mind. Furthermore, a mentally ill person may sign a contract when he or she is well. However, the Indian Contract Act of 1872 prohibits a person who is generally of sound mind from entering into a contract if he is not

Furthermore, in India, a person who is inebriated and unable to contract is responsible for the essentials that are provided to them. Similar procedures would apply to agreements made while under the influence of other substances.

It is often fairly evident that the issues of unsoundness of mind under English and Indian contract law are similar, with a few noteworthy deviations. However, in English law, unsoundness is not a concept; rather, it is a subset of the inability to contract, which includes connected parties such as public corporations and minorities. But in the Indian context, being unsound is limited to old age, inebriation, mental illness, and stupidity.

Reasons for Unsoundness of Mind

Lunatics

A lunatic is someone who has become mentally unstable due to mental stress or other traumatic experiences in the past. He experiences periods of both sanity and insanity. When he is of sound mind, he can enter into contracts, and such agreements will be enforceable. A contract that he enters while mentally incompetent will be null and invalid.

Idiots

A person who has lost their ability to think clearly and comprehend things is called an idiot. He has little comprehension of the common, everyday issues that affect everyone. While lunacy is a periodic insanity with periods of lucidity, idiocy is a constant inability. An idiot's agreement is null and void and is treated the same as that of a minor.

Drunken or intoxicated persons

When someone uses drugs or alcohol, their ability to contract is momentarily compromised. For example, when the individual reaches a point when he is too drunk to make any sensible decisions, he loses the ability to understand the transaction. A drunken person's stance is void, just as that of a lunatic, when they are not in their right frame of mind.

Burden of Proof

Assuming that the person alleging something is not mentally ill, it is their responsibility to provide evidence to support their claim. The heavy-duty remains even if it can only be proven that the person did not show any symptoms of insanity at the time the contract was made.

Hypnotism

When in artificially induced sleep, a person in hypnosis suffers a brief loss of consciousness. Therefore, when someone is hypnotized, it is deemed that they are of unsound mind.

Difference Between Insanity and Unsoundness of Mind

In legal terminology, the phrases "unsound mind" and "insanity" are frequently used interchangeably; nonetheless, the Supreme Court has said that insanity is a term that covers varied degrees of mental disease and has no specific meaning. In the Indian Penal Code, "unsoundness of mind" refers to insanity.

Undsoundess of Mind under IPC

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Unsoundness of Mind. It says that Anything done by someone who, at the time of the act, is unable to comprehend the nature of the conduct or that he is doing what is either illegal or against the law, due to mental illness, is not considered an offence. One of the general defences allowed by the IPC is the defence of insanity, which is provided for in Section 84 of the IPC.

In what is referred to as the M'Naghten case, the House of Lords established the legal basis for the concept of insanity in 1843. Section 84 of the IPC does not utilize the word "insanity." It makes use of the phrase "unsoundness of mind," which the Code does not define. Nonetheless, the term "unsoundness of mind" has been equated with "insanity" by Indian courts.

An accused person must demonstrate that, due to mental illness, he was unable to understand the nature of the act or that it was illegal to be granted protection under Section 84 of the IPC.

In the case of Rattan Lal v. State of MP (2002)

In this case, it was held that the moment the crime is committed is the critical point at which the accused should be found to be mentally ill. Whether the accused was in a condition that qualified them for Section 84 benefits depends only on the circumstances leading up to, including the aftermath of, the crime.

The onus to Prove Unsoundness of Mind

The burden of establishing that an individual's mental condition is abnormal always rests with the person making the allegation.

In Jyotindra Bhattacharjee V. Mrs Sona Bala Bora

The suit property was sold by the late Bora, a Hindu who was the sole owner and was subject to Dayabhaga School rules. The sale document and the mutation order gave the appellant possession of the property. The sale was opposed and contested by Bora's wife, children, and daughters. The respondent asserted, among other things, that the late Bora was not of sound mind to finish the selling transaction.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that the respondents were unable to demonstrate that the deceased Bora was not a regular person, holding that the burden of proof was always with the individual alleging such a state of mind. The court determined that late Bora was not abnormal just because he filed a lawsuit against his wife and kids, got into arguments with the family, moved out of the house for an extended length of time, and sold the entire estate, leaving the family members without a place to live. Furthermore, the respondents' claim that the late Bora was mentally incompetent was not supported by any documentation demonstrating that he had ever undergone a medical examination.

Unsoundness of Mind as a Ground for Divorce

Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act: This provision specifies that if one spouse is incurably mentally ill for at least three years, it can constitute grounds for divorce.
Other reasons for divorce: Other grounds for divorce include the respondent having a mental illness that prevents the petitioner from living with them.

Section 84 of Unsoundness of Mind

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is a general defence to criminal charges that addresses the insanity defence. It provides that an act is not deemed a crime if the perpetrator was unable to appreciate the nature of their conduct or that they were breaking the law owing to mental incapacity.

Unsoundness of Mind Case Laws

In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat

Facts of the case: In this case, It was alleged that the appellant killed his spouse. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's claim of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and found him guilty under Section 302 of the same code. The conviction was upheld by the High Court after an appeal. The appellant argued that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt since the accused had raised doubts about one of the elements' criminal purpose and that the High Court should have determined that the accused had met his burden of proof.

Findings by the Court: After reviewing the evidence and witness accounts, the Supreme Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused's insanity or even to raise a reasonable doubt about the possibility that the offence was done when the accused was insane. The burden of proof that must be met by the prosecution and defence was likewise established by the Supreme Court. The unique duty placed on the accused to establish his claim of insanity does not conflict with the prosecution's ordinary burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is always on them and never changes. The defence may prove their eligibility for the exemption under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and bears the same burden of proof as a party in a civil proceeding. The accused must provide evidence to the court in order for it to determine that the circumstances in issue existed or were so likely to do so that a wise man would be justified in acting on the premise that they did. At the crime scene, it is critical to evaluate the accused's mental condition. It is only possible to determine if the accused was in a mental condition that qualified them for protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by looking at the events preceding up to, including, and including the offence. The evidence presented may cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case in the court's view, allowing the accused to be released even if the accused was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was mad at the time of the offence.

In the case of Bajanti v. State

The accused had been experiencing stomach pains and tuberculosis for a while. One day, she and her baby jumped into a well; the child perished but the accused woman survived. She claimed insanity when faced with a § 302 prosecution, but the court rejected her claim because she was not suffering from any mental illness at the time of the offence. Nonetheless, it was claimed that she carried out the deed knowing that it would probably result in death. Her conviction for the crime of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was therefore changed from one under section 302 to one under section 304.

Conclusion

A state of mind that renders a contract voidable is called unsoundness of mind. A valid and binding contract requires both contracting parties to be able to make reasonable decisions and to be aware of the repercussions of the transactions they are embarking on. To be competent to enter into a contract, a person must be of sound mind. A mentally unsound person is unable to reason and may be mentally disabled either temporarily or permanently.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is unsoundness of mind Under IPC?

2. What is unsoundness of mind?

A person who lacks the mental capacity to think or comprehend the consequences of their actions is considered to be of unsound mind, as defined under the Indian Contract Act of 1872

3. What is an example of Unsound Mind?

Examples of Unsound minds are madness, idiocy, alcoholism etc.

4. Can a person of unsound mind file a case?

Yes according to order 32, a person of unsound mind can sue and can be sued.

5. What are the types of unsound minds?

The types of unsound minds are lunatic, idiotic, drunken or intoxicated.

6. What is meant by 'unsoundness of mind' in criminal law?

Unsoundness of mind' in criminal law refers to a mental condition that affects a person's ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions or to distinguish right from wrong at the time of committing an offense. It's a legal concept used to determine criminal responsibility and can be a basis for the insanity defense.

7. Can cultural or religious beliefs be mistaken for unsoundness of mind?

Cultural or religious beliefs, no matter how unusual they may seem to others, are not typically considered unsoundness of mind. The law distinguishes between beliefs based on cultural or religious background and those arising from mental illness. However, if cultural factors influence the expression or interpretation of a genuine mental illness, this complexity may need to be considered in legal proceedings.

8. How does the law address cases where unsoundness of mind is claimed to be the result of a physical medical condition?

Physical medical conditions that affect mental functioning (e.g., brain tumors, epilepsy, or certain hormonal imbalances) can be considered in unsoundness of mind claims. The key is demonstrating how the physical condition impacted the person's mental state at the time of the offense. This often requires expert medical testimony to establish the link between the physical condition and the mental state.

9. How does the law handle cases where unsoundness of mind is claimed to be the result of PTSD or other trauma-related disorders?

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other trauma-related disorders can be considered in unsoundness of mind claims. The key is demonstrating how the disorder affected the person's mental state at the time of the offense, particularly their ability to understand the nature of their actions or to distinguish right from wrong. The success of such claims often depends on the specific circumstances and the jurisdiction's legal standards.

10. Can addiction-induced psychosis be considered as unsoundness of mind?

Addiction-induced psychosis presents a complex legal situation. Generally, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. However, if long-term substance abuse has led to a permanent mental condition, or if the psychosis was an unexpected result of substance use, it might be considered. The key factors are the voluntariness of the intoxication and the foreseeability of the resulting mental state.

11. How does the law handle cases where unsoundness of mind is claimed to be intermittent or episodic?

In cases of intermittent or episodic unsoundness of mind, the focus is on the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. If it can be shown that the defendant was experiencing an episode of mental illness that meets the legal criteria for unsoundness of mind when the crime was committed, it can still be a valid defense. This often requires detailed evidence about the nature and timing of these episodes.

12. How does the concept of 'mens rea' relate to unsoundness of mind?

Mens rea, or "guilty mind," is a key element in criminal law referring to the mental state required for criminal liability. Unsoundness of mind can negate mens rea by showing that the accused was incapable of forming the necessary mental state (intent) to commit the crime due to their mental condition.

13. How does automatism relate to unsoundness of mind?

Automatism is a state where a person acts without conscious control or awareness. It can be related to unsoundness of mind, particularly in cases of 'insane automatism' where the automatism is caused by an internal factor like a mental condition. However, 'sane automatism' (caused by external factors) is distinct from unsoundness of mind.

14. Can addiction or substance abuse be considered unsoundness of mind?

Generally, addiction or voluntary intoxication is not considered unsoundness of mind for legal purposes. However, if long-term substance abuse has led to permanent mental impairment, or if the substance use was involuntary, it might be considered in evaluating the person's mental state at the time of the offense.

15. How does the concept of diminished responsibility differ from unsoundness of mind?

Diminished responsibility is a partial defense that can reduce the severity of a charge or sentence, while unsoundness of mind is a complete defense that can lead to acquittal. Diminished responsibility acknowledges that the defendant's mental capacity was impaired but not to the extent of full unsoundness of mind.

16. Can a person be deemed of unsound mind for some actions but not others?

Yes, unsoundness of mind is evaluated in relation to the specific criminal act in question. A person might be deemed of unsound mind for one action but not for another, depending on their mental state at the time of each action and how it affected their understanding or control over those specific actions.

17. What is the burden of proof in cases involving unsoundness of mind?

In most jurisdictions, the burden of proof for establishing unsoundness of mind lies with the defense. They must provide evidence to show that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the offense. The standard of proof may vary, but it's often "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt."

18. What role do expert witnesses play in cases involving unsoundness of mind?

Expert witnesses, typically psychiatrists or psychologists, play a crucial role in cases involving unsoundness of mind. They assess the defendant's mental state, provide professional opinions on the defendant's ability to understand their actions or distinguish right from wrong, and help the court understand complex mental health issues.

19. How does the insanity defense differ across jurisdictions?

The insanity defense, based on unsoundness of mind, can vary significantly across jurisdictions. Some use the M'Naghten Rule, others use the Model Penal Code test, and some have abolished the insanity defense altogether. The burden of proof, standards of evidence, and consequences of a successful defense can also differ.

20. How does the law address cases where unsoundness of mind is claimed to be induced by medication?

Cases where unsoundness of mind is claimed to be induced by medication are complex. If the medication was properly prescribed and taken as directed, resulting in an unexpected mental state that led to a criminal act, it might be considered as a basis for an unsoundness of mind defense. However, if the medication was misused or its effects were known and ignored, the defense may be less likely to succeed.

21. How does the law handle cases where unsoundness of mind is claimed to be the result of voluntary actions?

Generally, the law is less sympathetic to claims of unsoundness of mind resulting from voluntary actions, such as voluntary intoxication. However, if voluntary actions lead to an involuntary state of unsoundness (e.g., unexpected drug interactions causing psychosis), it may be considered differently. The key is whether the resulting mental state was foreseeable and avoidable.

22. How does the concept of 'volitional capacity' relate to unsoundness of mind?

Volitional capacity refers to a person's ability to control their actions. Some legal tests for insanity, like the Model Penal Code test, include a volitional component. This means that even if a person understood their actions were wrong, they might still be considered of unsound mind if they were unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law due to mental illness.

23. What is the 'irresistible impulse' test in relation to unsoundness of mind?

The 'irresistible impulse' test is an additional criterion some jurisdictions use alongside the M'Naghten Rule. It considers whether the defendant, due to a mental condition, was unable to control their actions even if they understood them to be wrong. This test broadens the scope of the insanity defense beyond cognitive understanding.

24. What is the 'product test' for insanity and how does it relate to unsoundness of mind?

The 'product test', also known as the Durham Rule, states that an accused is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect. This test focuses on causation rather than the cognitive understanding emphasized in the M'Naghten Rule, potentially broadening the scope of what can be considered unsoundness of mind.

25. How does the concept of 'irresistible impulse' differ from 'uncontrollable impulse' in the context of unsoundness of mind?

Irresistible impulse' suggests that due to mental illness, a person was completely unable to control their actions, even if they knew they were wrong. 'Uncontrollable impulse', on the other hand, might imply a lesser degree of impairment where the impulse was very difficult, but not impossible, to resist. This distinction can be crucial in determining the applicability of an unsoundness of mind defense.

26. How does the concept of 'mens rea' in specific intent crimes interact with unsoundness of mind?

In specific intent crimes, which require a particular mental state beyond just intending the act, unsoundness of mind can be particularly relevant. If a defendant's mental condition prevented them from forming the specific intent required for the crime (e.g., premeditation in first-degree murder), it could lead to acquittal or reduction to a lesser charge, even if it doesn't meet the full criteria for an insanity defense.

27. Can unsoundness of mind be used as a defense in civil cases?

While the concept of unsoundness of mind is primarily used in criminal law, it can also be relevant in civil cases. In civil law, it might affect a person's capacity to enter into contracts, make wills, or be held liable for torts. However, the standards and implications may differ from criminal cases.

28. What is the role of neuroimaging in cases involving claims of unsoundness of mind?

Neuroimaging, such as MRI or PET scans, is increasingly being used in cases involving unsoundness of mind claims. These tools can provide visual evidence of brain abnormalities or dysfunctions that might support claims of mental illness. However, the interpretation of these images in a legal context is complex, and courts must carefully consider how much weight to give this type of evidence.

29. How does 'unsoundness of mind' differ from mental illness?

Unsoundness of mind' is a legal term, while mental illness is a medical concept. Not all mental illnesses result in legal unsoundness of mind. For criminal law purposes, unsoundness of mind specifically relates to the person's mental state at the time of the offense and its impact on their ability to form criminal intent.

30. What is the M'Naghten Rule and how does it relate to unsoundness of mind?

The M'Naghten Rule is a legal test for criminal insanity. It states that a person is not criminally responsible if, due to a mental defect, they either did not understand the nature and quality of their act or did not know that what they were doing was wrong. This rule is often used to determine unsoundness of mind in criminal cases.

31. Can temporary insanity be considered as unsoundness of mind?

Yes, temporary insanity can be considered as unsoundness of mind if it meets the legal criteria. If a person was in a temporary state where they couldn't understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense, it could qualify as unsoundness of mind for legal purposes.

32. Can unsoundness of mind be used as a defense for all types of crimes?

While unsoundness of mind can potentially be used as a defense for any crime, its applicability and effectiveness may vary depending on the nature of the crime and the specific circumstances. It's more commonly used in serious crimes where the mental state of the accused is crucial to establishing guilt.

33. What is the difference between 'not guilty by reason of insanity' and 'guilty but mentally ill'?

Not guilty by reason of insanity' means the defendant is acquitted due to unsoundness of mind and is typically committed to a mental health facility. 'Guilty but mentally ill' means the defendant is convicted but receives mental health treatment in addition to or instead of traditional punishment. The latter acknowledges mental illness without fully excusing the criminal act.

34. How does the concept of 'diminished capacity' differ from unsoundness of mind?

Diminished capacity is a partial defense that doesn't completely excuse the crime but may reduce the charges or sentence. It argues that the defendant's mental state prevented them from forming the specific intent required for the crime. Unsoundness of mind, on the other hand, is a complete defense arguing that the defendant was not criminally responsible at all due to their mental state.

35. What is the significance of the 'ALI Test' in determining unsoundness of mind?

The ALI (American Law Institute) Test, also known as the Model Penal Code Test, is a broader standard for insanity than the M'Naghten Rule. It states that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, due to mental disease or defect, they lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of law. This test considers both cognitive and volitional aspects of mental state.

36. What is the 'Durham Rule' and how does it differ from other tests for unsoundness of mind?

The Durham Rule, established in Durham v. United States (1954), states that a defendant is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. This rule is broader than the M'Naghten Rule as it doesn't require the defendant to be unable to distinguish right from wrong. Instead, it focuses on whether the mental illness caused the criminal behavior.

37. What is the relationship between competency to stand trial and unsoundness of mind?

Competency to stand trial and unsoundness of mind are distinct legal concepts. Competency refers to the defendant's current mental state and ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. Unsoundness of mind relates to their mental state at the time of the offense. A person can be competent to stand trial but still plead unsoundness of mind as a defense.

38. How does the concept of 'mens rea' apply in cases where the defendant claims partial unsoundness of mind?

In cases of partial unsoundness of mind, the concept of mens rea becomes more complex. The court must determine to what extent the defendant's mental state affected their ability to form the specific intent required for the crime. This might result in a reduction of charges (e.g., from murder to manslaughter) rather than a complete acquittal, reflecting the partial nature of the impairment.

39. Can unsoundness of mind be considered in cases involving strict liability offenses?

Strict liability offenses are those where the prosecution doesn't need to prove mental intent. While unsoundness of mind defenses are typically less relevant in these cases, they may still be considered in some jurisdictions, particularly if the level of mental impairment was severe. However, the application of this defense in strict liability cases is generally more limited.

40. Can unsoundness of mind be considered in cases involving negligence?

In negligence cases, which typically don't require specific intent, unsoundness of mind can still be relevant. It may affect the determination of whether the defendant's actions met the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. However, if the mental condition was known to the defendant, they might be expected to take additional precautions, potentially affecting how unsoundness of mind is considered in these cases.

41. What is the significance of the 'Insanity Defense Reform Act' in U.S. federal law regarding unsoundness of mind?

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 significantly narrowed the federal insanity defense in the U.S. It adopted a stricter version of the M'Naghten Rule, placing the burden of proof on the defendant and eliminating the volitional prong of the ALI test. This act reflects a trend towards a more restrict

42. What happens if a person is found not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind?

If found not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind, the person is typically not punished in the traditional sense. Instead, they are usually committed to a mental health facility for treatment. The length of commitment often depends on their ongoing mental state and potential risk to society.

43. How does the law handle cases where unsoundness of mind is temporary or fluctuating?

The law focuses on the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. If unsoundness of mind was present during the crime but not before or after, it can still be a valid defense. This requires careful examination of the defendant's mental state specifically at the time of the criminal act.

44. Can unsoundness of mind be considered in sentencing even if it doesn't meet the threshold for an insanity defense?

Yes, even if unsoundness of mind doesn't meet the threshold for a full insanity defense, it can still be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Courts may take into account the defendant's mental state when determining an appropriate punishment or treatment plan.

45. What is the significance of the McNaughton case in shaping the legal understanding of unsoundness of mind?

The McNaughton case (1843) was pivotal in shaping the modern legal understanding of unsoundness of mind. It established the McNaughton Rules, which define the criteria for the insanity defense in many jurisdictions. The case emphasized cognitive understanding (knowing right from wrong) as the key factor in determining criminal responsibility, a principle that continues to influence legal thinking on unsoundness of mind.