BNS Section 22 - Act Of A Person Of Unsound Mind

BNS Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), establishes an important principle of criminal law and acknowledges the importance of the defendant's mental condition in determining criminal liability. This section offers an important defense that states that an act done by a person incapable of understanding the character of their conduct, or that it was wrong or unlawful due to that person's mental illness at the time of the act, would not constitute an offense. The definition of mental capacity reflects a legal understanding requiring criminal liability to attach only if a person has the mental capacity to understand the impact and morality involved in their actions.

In this blog, you will get to know about

• Simplified Explanation of BNS Section 22.
• Key Details
• Relevant FAQs

Legal Provision

Section 22 of the BNS 'Act of a Person of Unsound Mind' states:

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Simplified Explanation

The crux of the matter is that, under Section 22 of the BNS, if a person commits an act that generally is considered a crime, but because of a mental disease he was unable to tell what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong or illegal, this is not considered an offense in law.

The key elements of this section are:

• Mental Illness: The person must be suffering from a mental illness at the time of committing the act. This is a broad term encompassing various psychiatric conditions that can impair a person's cognitive functions and understanding.
• Incapacity to Know the Nature of the Act: Due to their mental illness, the person must be incapable of understanding the physical nature of their actions. For example, they might not realize they are hitting someone or using a weapon.
• Incapacity to Know Wrongfulness: Alternatively, even if they understand the physical nature of their act, their mental illness must render them incapable of knowing that what they are doing is either morally wrong according to societal norms or legally prohibited.

Key Details

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 22

A few examples of BNS Section 22 are:

Example 1

A very disturbed person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia believes that the neighbor is trying to kill him and then attacks the neighbor with the belief that he is defending himself from a real threat. Medical evidence, however, shows that, as a result of his mental illness, the individual was unable to ever comprehend the falsity of the delusion or the wrongness of his actions; thereby making him eligible for the defense under BNS Section 22, which he lacked the capacity to know his act was wrong due to a distorted perception of reality by the illness.

Example 2

A person with a profound intellectual disability and a mental age well below seven commits an act that would otherwise be an offence. Whilst BNS Section 20, applies to children under the age of seven, there is a possibility that otherwise they would fall under BNS Section 22 if the individual had the same level of incapacity due to having a "mental illness" in the legal sense, then it is an issue for the courts to determine if the person did not know at the time of the act that it was of a nature or wrongful.

Key Improvements and Changes: IPC Section 84 to BNS Section 22

A straight textual comparison shows that BNS Section 22 is almost identically worded to IPC Section 84. The only significant change was the word "unsoundness of mind" being replaced with "mental illness." 

The essence of the legal principle remains constant, but the change from "unsoundness of mind" to "mental illness" represents more current and medically accurate understandings of mental health, of course. "Unsoundness of mind" is a fairly vague and dated term to use. "Mental illness" has a more clinically established definition and better emphasizes that medical evidence will have to be put forward. 

So the only significant improvement is having a more accurately defined semantic language that aligns better with today's medical terminology. Meanwhile, the underlying principle of the legal test - incapacity to know the nature or wrongfulness of the act was due to a mental condition at the time of commission - is effectively the same. Old case law and interpretations made under IPC Section 84 will continue to provide useful guidance in the application of BNS Section 22.

Conclusion

As a replacement for IPC section 84, BNS section 22 represents the essential legal principle underlying all criminal liability, specifically that some mental capacity is required for criminal liability. The law accepts that there is no way to hold a person who, as a result of mental illness, is unable to comprehend the nature of their actions or to know they are doing something morally wrong, fully accountable as you would someone of unimpaired mental capacity.

FAQs

A few FAQs are:

Q1 - Why was IPC Section 84 revised and replaced with BNS Section 22?

IPC Section 84 was not specifically revised; the entire Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as part of a comprehensive overhaul of India's criminal laws. BNS Section 22 is the corresponding provision that re-enacts the principle of the defense of mental incapacity, using the more contemporary term "mental illness" instead of "unsoundness of mind."

Q2 - What are the main differences between IPC Section 84 and BNS Section 22?

The primary difference is the change in terminology from "unsoundness of mind" in IPC Section 84 to "mental illness" in BNS Section 22. This reflects a shift towards more medically accurate language while the core legal test for the defense remains substantially the same.

Q3 - Is BNS Section 22 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

BNS Section 22 does not define an offense itself; it provides a defense against an act that would otherwise be an offense. The bailability of the underlying act that the person with mental illness is accused of committing will determine whether the situation falls under a bailable or non-bailable category.

Q4 - What is the punishment for an offense under BNS Section 22?

BNS Section 22 provides an exemption from criminal liability. If the defense of mental illness under this section is successful, the accused is acquitted of the offense. However, the court may order their detention in a mental health institution for treatment and safety, as per the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Q5 - What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 22?

Since BNS Section 22 provides an exemption from offense, no fine is imposed if the defense is successful. If the defense fails, any fine will be as per the provisions related to the original offense committed.

Q6 - Is the offense under BNS Section 22 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Again, BNS Section 22 provides a defense, not an offense itself. The cognizable or non-cognizable nature of the underlying act that the person with mental illness is accused of committing will determine how law enforcement can proceed.

Q7 - What is the BNS Section 22 equivalent of IPC Section 84?

The BNS Section 22 equivalent of IPC Section 84 is BNS Section 22 itself. It directly replaces and re-enacts the same legal principle concerning the defense of mental incapacity, with a minor terminological update.