The intersection of neuroscience and criminal law challenges
traditional notions of mens rea and criminal responsibility,
particularly in cases involving unconscious actions or impaired
mental states. While Indian jurisprudence emphasizes intentionality
through actus reus and mens rea, it struggles to accommodate
conditions like automatism, epilepsy, or trauma-induced
dissociation. Section 84 of the IPC (now section 22 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) offers limited protection, often excluding non-
psychotic disorders and placing undue burden on the accused.
Judicial inconsistencies further complicate adjudication, as seen in
cases of sleepwalking or neurological impairments. This chapter
emphasize on cautious integration of neuroscientific insights to
refine legal frameworks, balancing accountability with diminished
culpability. Reforms must expand definitions of unsoundness of
mind, distinguish automatism from insanity, and incorporate expert
testimony while preserving core legal principles.
