Data Structure
Networking
RDBMS
Operating System
Java
MS Excel
iOS
HTML
CSS
Android
Python
C Programming
C++
C#
MongoDB
MySQL
Javascript
PHP
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Mathematics
English
Economics
Psychology
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
Legal Studies
- Selected Reading
- UPSC IAS Exams Notes
- Developer's Best Practices
- Questions and Answers
- Effective Resume Writing
- HR Interview Questions
- Computer Glossary
- Who is Who
Furiosi Nulla Voluntas Est: Definition and Meaning
When the phrase furiosi nulla voluntas est comes into play it means, the accused is not guilty of the crime as the suspect is referred to as a madman, not capable to assess the nature of his actions. Mentally challenged or mentally unable people cannot legally sign a will, a contract, or get into the right frame of mind to do something illegal. Nothing that is done by an individual who, at the time of performing it, is incapable of understanding the nature of the act due to mental incapacity or that he is doing what is either improper or contrary to the law, constitutes a crime, according to Section 84 of the IPC.
What is Furiosi Nulla Voluntas Est?
The maxim furiosi nulla voluntas est directly translates to ‘there is no free will of the madman’ or ‘the madman has no free will’.
The above breakdown of the phrase shows how the word comes into play. The afore mentioned maxim is mostly used to prevent a mentally unstable person to take direct legal action protecting him/her of being manipulated unfairly.
Illustrations of Furiosi Nulla Voluntas Est
The Daniel McNaughton case established the general direction of the law, highlighted the value of expert testimony, and advanced international insanity law. In 1843, McNaughton shot the prime minister's confidential secretary in an effort to kill him. He was then found not guilty due to insanity but was nonetheless kept in a mental hospital. The McNaughton Rules were established by the House of Lords in reaction to this circumstance.
Important Case Laws
Jai Lal vs. Administration of Delhi (30.04.1968)
The defendant in Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration was a former schizophrenic patient. He stabbed a 6−month−old baby to death, killing him and injuring a few others in the process. He claimed not guilty due to insanity, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the appeal after taking into account his following actions during the crime, including hiding the knife, locking the door to prevent being arrested, attempting to flee through the back door, and trying to disperse the gathering.
Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra (2002)
The Supreme Court granted Shrikant's appeal after it was established that he inherited his condition from his father. Shrikant had been charged with murdering his wife while suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and he had been against the decisions made by the Sessions Court and High Court. In this instance, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the recorded evidence" that would indicate that the crime was committed. A crucial fact is that the person was mentally unwell both before and after the offence was committed.
SheralliWalli Mohammed vs. State of Maharashtra (1972)
The Supreme Court ruled that the accused failure to flee when the door was forced open or the fact that no motivation for the murder of his wife and kid had been established did not prove that he was insane or had the essential mens rea for the crime. Section 84 does not provide protection for only mental illness, partial hallucination, irresistible impulses, or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath.
Conclusion
In India, the law governing insanity defense is well established and closely scrutinized to ensure that no fake pleas are accepted and no one with a criminal mind is exonerated of accusations. The defense of insanity under Section 84 accomplishes its function because the arguments made in support of it are scrutinized closely. It is difficult to employ this as a defense strategy since the defense attorney must establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The claim of insanity results in an easy conviction and, in some cases, no charges of punishment since, while a person's mental state can be altered on paper, it is very difficult to determine if they are insane or not.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How does the IPC view insanity?
Ans: According to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, or "IPC," nothing that is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, due to mental incapacity, is unable to know the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either illegal or against the law constitutes an offence.
Q: How are Furioso Nulla Voluntas Est and Mens Rea linked?
Ans: "Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea" (an act does not constitute guilt unless it is performed with guilty intent) and "Furiosi nulla voluntas est" (a mentally ill person has no free will) are foundational principles of criminal law that are clearly embodied in Section 84 IPC.
Q: What is the Mc’Naughtens rule?
Ans: The McNaughten regulations state that "The person is considered to be sane unless the contrary is proved, the act must be followed by a lack of reason caused by the "disease of the mind," and the person was clueless of the nature and quality of the crime."
22 Views
