BACK TO SECTIONS(2011) 11 SCC 495(2007) 8 SCC 66
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 20-24
General Exceptions: Infancy, Insanity, Intoxication
Replaces colonial-era: IPC 82-86
N/ACognizable: N/AN/A
Reform Highlights
1
Direct renumbering from IPC 82–86 to BNS 20–24.
2
Age of criminal responsibility unchanged — absolute immunity below 7, qualified 7–12.
3
M'Naghten standard for insanity preserved.
4
Voluntary intoxication remains expressly excluded as a defence under Section 24.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Section 20: Act of a child under seven years. Section 22: Act of a person of unsound mind. Section 23: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against their will.
Legal Commentary
Sections 20–24 deal with three great incapacities of the mind: extreme youth, mental illness, and involuntary intoxication. All three rest on the same philosophical foundation — criminal liability requires the capacity to understand what one is doing and to form a guilty intention. Where that capacity is fundamentally absent, punishment is both morally unjust and legally unsound. Section 20 provides absolute immunity for children under 7 years — the principle of 'doli incapax' (incapable of crime). The law recognises that young children lack the moral and cognitive development to appreciate the criminality of their acts. Section 21 creates qualified immunity for ages 7–12: liability only attaches if the child had 'sufficient maturity of understanding' — a fact-specific inquiry. Section 22 addresses insanity — modelled on England's M'Naghten Rules (1843) — providing a complete defence where, due to unsoundness of mind, the person either did not know the nature of the act or did not know it was wrong. This is a high standard: anger or bad temper does not qualify. Section 23 covers involuntary intoxication — if someone's drink was spiked without their knowledge, causing them to lose judgment, they cannot be held criminally liable. Section 24, critically, makes voluntary intoxication irrelevant — a person who gets drunk and commits an offence cannot claim intoxication as an excuse.
Landmark Precedents
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court reiterated that the insanity defence requires proof that at the time of the act, the accused could not understand its nature or wrongfulness — mere mental abnormality is insufficient.
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007)
RELEVANCE
Established that the burden of proving insanity lies on the accused on a balance of probabilities — not the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Simulations
"A 6-year-old who, while playing, causes a fatal accident — completely immune under Section 20."
"An 11-year-old who steals from a classmate — the court assesses whether the child had sufficient maturity to understand the wrongfulness (Section 21)."
"A person with severe bipolar disorder who, during a psychotic episode, assaults a stranger with no understanding the act is wrong — may be acquitted under Section 22 with strong psychiatric evidence."
"A person whose tea is secretly laced with a hallucinogen at a party who then gets into a violent altercation — may invoke involuntary intoxication under Section 23."
Expert Insights
No. Absolute immunity remains below 7 years (Section 20), and qualified immunity applies for ages 7–12 (Section 21). In practice, the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 governs how children in conflict with the law are treated through Juvenile Justice Boards up to age 18.
Yes, if medical evidence proves that at the exact time of the act, due to the episode, the person did not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong. Courts require strong psychiatric evidence; most insanity defences fail because the standard is very high.
No. Section 24 expressly excludes voluntary intoxication. However, if your drink was spiked without your knowledge (involuntary intoxication under Section 23) and caused loss of judgment, you may have a defence.