THE FORGOTTEN VOICE: VICTIMS IN CASES OFMENTAL HEALTH DEFENCE

When a person gets acquitted by reason of mental illness, there is a tendency in the judicial

system to look into the accused's state of mind without considering the victims and their families. This blog explores the tug of war between compassion for the accused and recognition to the harmed and explores the ways in which reforms like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 seeks to restore the balance and give voice to the survivors.

Introduction

Justice, at its heart, is meant to feel like balance. It is supposed to hold rights in one hand,

responsibilities in the other, and never lose sight of the harm that was done in between. Yet,

when the accused pleads insanity, this balance tilts in inexplicable ways. The courtroom turns its gaze almost entirely on the mental state of the offender while the victim’s voice, once at the centre of the crime, fades into the background.

The Law & Its Silence

Indian law passes this defence under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which derives from the nineteenth-century McNaughten Rules. The defence excuses a person if, at the time of doing the act, they did not understand its nature, or that it was in fact wrong. The provision reflects a deep moral principle: punishing someone who truly lacked comprehension is unjust. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563), confirmed that the accused only needs to show insanity on a balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. But here lies the tension. For the victim, the outcome can feel like erasure. In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2011 SC 627) 2 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India emphasised that mere abnormality of mind is not enough, yet once the defence succeeds, acquittal is complete. The victim may be given a clinical explanation, but never true recognition of the harm. The verdict may be right in law but in the eyes of a victim or a grieving family, it sounds nearly as if their sufferings were silenced.

Between Compassion & Recognition

The post-acquittal proceedings are equally disturbing. Most offenders are sent to psychiatric institutions under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. 3 But neither is there any clarity on their duration of stay, nor is there any transparency on what happens next. The victims and their families almost never get to know what exactly happens next. They do not get to know if the person is undergoing treatment or eligible to be released soon. For already scarred families, the mere thought of an unannounced release of the accused fills them with dread- an open wound with no time to heal. Because essentially, justice is not merely about punishing the guilty, it is also about enabling those who have undergone trauma to feel protected, to find closure, and to regain a normal life.

Some other countries have tried to go right at this question. In the United Kingdom, the Homicide Act of 1957 introduced the idea of “diminished responsibility.” It allows courts to treat murder as manslaughter when mental illness clouds judgment, but it does so without wiping away accountability. In the United States, some states turn to a verdict of “guilty but

mentally ill,” a way of saying both things at once, that the act was committed, and that treatment is necessary. 5 These approaches rest on an uncomfortable but vital truth: the mind may falter, yet the hurt left behind does not vanish. India has begun to move towards victim-centric justice in other areas. Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 6 provides for compensation schemes, and in Nipun Saxena v.Union of India (2019), 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored the importance of survivor dignity. Yet when it comes to mental health defenses, victims are left in the shadows.

There is no structured compensation, no statutory requirement to involve them in decisions about release, and no mechanism to formally acknowledge their loss in judgments that absolve the accused. The provisions for monitoring those acquitted on mental health grounds, supervision during detention, treatment, and eventual release are provided in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 8 This is in the interest of the victims who must be kept informed so that they are not left in doubt, thereby providing some form of recognition and security for them. In formally considering the damage caused to a person, the BNS thus takes a step forward in ensuring the recognition of and giving voice to those injured while balancing sympathy toward the accused, thus filling an age-old gap that has always rendered the survivors invisible. This is not a call to take away compassion from those with mental illness. It is a call to widen the frame of justice. The law must hold two truths at the same time. A person who lacked intent should not be punished like a culpable offender, but a victim’s suffering cannot be diminished because of it. Reforms to Section 84 could allow for verdicts that recognise harm while mandating treatment.

Oversight boards could make sure that victims are kept in the loop and informed whenever an acquitted person is released. For many, a great deal of what remains long after the trial is not just the memory of what happened, but also a quiet question gnawing at them: Does my suffering matter here at all? When the system fails to answer this question, justice seems incomplete.

Conclusion

In essence, ‘True Justice’ must have enough room for both voices; the accused struggling

with illness and the victim who carries the weight of its aftermath. Without such balance,

justice becomes a conversation where only one side is heard, and those who most need

recognition remain unseen.

REFERENCES

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627

Mental Health Care Act, No. 10 of 2017, §§ 87–100 (India)

 Homicide Act, 1957, c. 11 (UK)

American Bar Association, Insanity Defense Resource

Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 357A (India)

Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, §§ 373–374