Section 373 of BNSS, 2023 — Judgment of Acquittal on Ground of Unsoundness of Mind

Introduction

Section 373 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the judgment to be delivered when an accused is acquitted because, at the time of committing the alleged offence, the accused was of unsound mind and was incapable of understanding the nature of the act or that the act was wrong or contrary to law.

The provision requires the Court to make a specific finding about whether the accused actually committed the alleged act. Thus, even though the accused is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind, the judgment must separately determine whether the act itself was committed by the accused.

Meaning of Section 373

Section 373 applies where an accused is acquitted on the ground that, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and, because of that condition, was:

• incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged to constitute the offence; or
• incapable of knowing that the act was wrong or contrary to law.

In such a case, the Court’s finding must specifically state whether the accused committed the alleged act or not.

Statutory Basis

Section 373 of BNSS, 2023 provides:

“Whenever any person is acquitted upon the ground that, at the time at which he is alleged to have committed an offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged as constituting the offence, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the finding shall state specifically whether he committed the act or not.”

The provision is part of the BNSS provisions dealing with accused persons of unsound mind.

Object and Purpose

The primary purpose of Section 373 is to ensure that an acquittal based on unsoundness of mind does not leave the factual question of the accused’s conduct undecided.

The provision requires the Court to distinguish between two questions:

• whether the accused committed the alleged act; and
• whether the accused can be held criminally responsible for that act because of unsoundness of mind.

An accused may have committed the physical act alleged but may nevertheless be acquitted because the mental condition required for criminal responsibility was absent at the relevant time.

Essential Elements

1. The accused must be acquitted

Section 373 operates when the accused is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind.

It is therefore not a general provision governing every acquittal.

2. Unsoundness of mind must relate to the time of the alleged offence

The relevant question is the mental condition of the accused at the time when the alleged act was committed.

The provision is concerned with whether the accused, because of unsoundness of mind at that time, was incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act.

3. Incapacity to understand the nature of the act

The accused may have been incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged to constitute the offence.

This concerns the accused’s inability to understand what the act actually was.

4. Incapacity to understand that the act was wrong or contrary to law

The provision also covers a situation where, because of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing that the act was wrong or contrary to law.

5. Specific finding regarding commission of the act

The most important procedural requirement is that the judgment must specifically state whether the accused committed the alleged act or not.

The Court cannot merely record an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind without addressing this factual question.

Procedure and Effect

Where the Court finds that the accused was incapable, because of unsoundness of mind, of understanding the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law, and consequently acquits the accused, the judgment must contain a specific finding.

The finding must answer:

Did the accused commit the alleged act or not?

If the Court finds that the accused did not commit the act, the matter ends on that factual finding subject to the applicable legal remedies.

If the Court finds that the accused did commit the act but was incapable of understanding its nature or wrongfulness because of unsoundness of mind, the consequences under the subsequent provisions of BNSS become relevant.

In particular, Section 374 deals with the detention in safe custody of a person acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind where the finding states that the accused committed the act.

Relationship with Section 374

Section 373 and Section 374 operate closely together.

Section 373 requires the Court to determine whether the accused committed the alleged act.

Where the finding states that the accused committed the act, Section 374 provides for the subsequent legal consequences concerning safe custody or delivery to a relative or friend, subject to the conditions prescribed by that provision.

Therefore, the specific finding under Section 373 is significant for determining what happens after the acquittal.

Important Distinction

Acquittal vs Finding that the Act Was Committed

An acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind does not necessarily mean that the Court has found that the accused did not commit the physical act.

The Court may find that:

• the accused committed the act; but
• because of unsoundness of mind, the accused lacked the relevant capacity to understand the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.

Consequently, the accused may be acquitted while the judgment simultaneously records that the accused committed the act.

Section 373 and Criminal Responsibility

Section 373 should be understood alongside the substantive criminal law governing acts committed by persons of unsound mind.

The procedural function of Section 373 is to ensure that the Court records a specific finding concerning the commission of the act when the accused is acquitted because of unsoundness of mind.

The question of criminal liability and the procedural consequences following such an acquittal must therefore be kept conceptually distinct.

BNSS and CrPC

Section 373 of BNSS corresponds to Section 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The substance of the provision has been carried forward without a significant change in its basic rule.

Under the CrPC, Section 334 dealt with the judgment of acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind.

Under BNSS, the same principle is contained in Section 373.

The principal change is the renumbering from Section 334 of the CrPC to Section 373 of the BNSS. The underlying requirement that the finding must specifically state whether the accused committed the act remains substantially the same.

Relationship with BNS and BSA

The three new criminal laws have different functions:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals primarily with substantive criminal offences and criminal liability.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) establishes the procedural framework for criminal proceedings.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) governs the law of evidence.

Section 373 is a procedural provision under BNSS. The substantive question concerning criminal responsibility arising from unsoundness of mind must be considered with the applicable provisions of criminal law.

Important BNSS Provisions

• Section 367 — Procedure in case of accused being person of unsound mind.
• Section 368 — Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court.
• Section 369 — Release of person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial.
• Section 370 — Resumption of inquiry or trial.
• Section 371 — Procedure on accused appearing before Magistrate or Court.
• Section 372 — When accused appears to have been of sound mind.
• Section 373 — Judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind.
• Section 374 — Person acquitted on ground of unsoundness of mind to be detained in safe custody.

Case Law

Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, Home Department Secretary

This Supreme Court decision concerned the corresponding provision under the earlier CrPC, Section 334.

The case is relevant to the interpretation of the principle that an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind requires a clear finding concerning whether the accused committed the alleged act.

Since BNSS Section 373 substantially carries forward the earlier CrPC Section 334, judicial interpretation of Section 334 may remain relevant where the statutory language and legal context are substantially the same.

Example

Suppose A is accused of causing the death of B.

During the proceedings, the Court finds that A committed the physical act but that, at the time of the act, A was suffering from unsoundness of mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.

A is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind.

Under Section 373, the judgment must specifically state that A committed the alleged act.

The acquittal does not prevent the Court from recording this factual finding. The consequences following such a finding are then governed by the subsequent provisions, particularly Section 374.

Common Confusions

Does acquittal under Section 373 mean that the accused did not commit the act?

No.

The Court may acquit the accused because of unsoundness of mind while specifically finding that the accused committed the alleged act.

What must the judgment specifically state?

It must state whether the accused committed the alleged act or not.

Is Section 373 itself a provision for detention?

No.

Section 373 deals with the finding in the judgment. The consequences concerning detention in safe custody are dealt with principally by Section 374.

Is Section 373 the same as CrPC Section 334?

Substantially, yes.

Section 373 BNSS corresponds to Section 334 CrPC and carries forward the core rule regarding the finding that must accompany an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind.

Topic at a Glance

• Topic: Judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind
• BNSS Section: Section 373
• Core principle: The judgment must specifically state whether the accused committed the alleged act.
• Ground of acquittal: Unsoundness of mind at the time of the alleged offence.
• Relevant incapacity: Inability to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.
• Related provision: Section 374 deals with detention in safe custody following the relevant finding.
• Corresponding CrPC provision: Section 334
• Nature of change: Substantially carried forward and renumbered under BNSS.

Quick Revision

• Section 373 BNSS deals with judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind.
• It applies when the accused is acquitted because, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was incapable of understanding the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law because of unsoundness of mind.
• The Court must specifically state whether the accused committed the act or not.
• Acquittal does not necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the physical act.
• If the accused is found to have committed the act, Section 374 becomes relevant regarding safe custody and related consequences.
• Section 373 BNSS corresponds to Section 334 CrPC.
• The core rule has been substantially carried forward under BNSS.
• The provision must be understood alongside the BNSS provisions dealing with persons of unsound mind.

ALSO READ: Section 373 – Judgment of acquittal on ground of unsoundness of mind

Conclusion

Section 373 of the BNSS ensures that an acquittal based on unsoundness of mind contains a clear factual finding regarding the alleged act. It separates the question of whether the accused committed the act from the question of whether the accused possessed the mental capacity necessary for criminal responsibility. This finding is also significant because the subsequent legal consequences under Section 374 depend upon whether the Court determines that the accused actually committed the act.