Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 372
When accused appears to have been of sound mind
When the accused appears to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial, and the Magistrate is satisfied from the evidence given before him that there is reason to believe that the accused committed an act, which, if he had been of sound mind, would
have been an offence, and that he was, at the time when the act was committed, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the Magistrate shall proceed with the case, and, if the accused ought to be tried by the Court of Session, commit him for trial before the Court of Session.
Why this exists
Indian criminal law does not punish a person for an act done at a time when a mental illness made it impossible for them to know right from wrong. This section makes sure that even though the accused has since recovered, the special question of their mental state at the time of the offence is still properly examined by the appropriate court, rather than being ignored just because they seem fine now.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: If the accused looks mentally healthy in court, the unsoundness-of-mind defence cannot apply.
Fact: What matters is the person's mental state at the time of the act, not at the time of trial — this section requires the Magistrate to examine that separately.