Section 372 BNSS: When accused appears to have been of sound mind (Formerly Section 333 CrPC)

Section 372 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: When accused appears to have been of sound mind

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 372

Section 372 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 333 of the CrPC, 1973) governs the procedure when an accused appears to have been of sound mind at the time of the offence but is incapable of defending themselves at trial, or vice versa.

Distinction Between Offence Time and Trial Time: Deals with the dichotomy between legal insanity at the time of commission (Sec 22 BNS / Sec 84 IPC) and procedural insanity at the time of trial.
Procedure when Unsound at Trial: If capable at the time of offence but currently unsound, trial is postponed under Section 368.
Procedure when Sound at Trial but Insane at Offence: If sound at trial, the trial proceeds, and the defence of legal insanity is adjudicated on merits upon evidence.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563: The Supreme Court laid down the classic tripartite test for insanity: legal insanity at the exact time of the offence is what confers exemption from criminal liability.
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495: Reiterated that every person suffering from mental illness is not legally insane; the accused must be incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness of the act.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Ensure that evidence of medical history, bizarre pre-offence conduct, absence of motive, and post-offence lack of concealment is meticulously placed on record to establish Section 22 BNS legal insanity at trial.