The Legal Dilemmas of Crimes Committed in Dreams: Can Individuals be Held Liable for Actions in Altered States of Consciousness?

Abstract

The intersection of criminal liability and altered states of consciousness presents unique jurisprudential challenges. Crimes allegedly committed during sleep or dream states raise profound questions about culpability, intent, and free will. This paper explores the legal dilemmas surrounding criminal acts committed in dreams, analyzing jurisprudence, neuroscience, and comparative legal frameworks. The study evaluates provisions in thenewly enacted Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bhartiya SakshyaAdhiniyam, 2023 (BSA),andBhartiyaNagrikSurakshaSanhita,2023(BNSS),examiningtheirimplications for altered states of consciousness. Through case studies and doctrinal analysis, the research evaluates whether legal systems should attribute liability for involuntary acts performed in dream-like states. Ethical considerations and potential legal reforms are also discussed to ensure justice aligns with emerging scientific insights.

Introduction

A. Background

Criminal law is based on actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). However, crimes committed during altered states of consciousness (e.g., sleepwalking, parasomnia, lucid dreaming) challenge these principles, raising questions about voluntariness and intent. Advances in neuroscience urge a re-evaluation of traditional liability frameworks.

B. Research Problem

Legal systems lack a clear approach to dream-related crimes. Jurisdictions vary on whether to absolve liability, complicating legal treatment of unconscious acts. This study explores how Indian law (BNS, BSA, BNSS) addresses such issues.

C. Objectives

1. Analyze legal treatment of involuntary acts in altered states.

2. Study case law across jurisdictions.

3. Evaluate Indian statutes (BNS, BSA, BNSS).

4. Explore scientific defenses and ethics.

5. Recommend legal reforms.

D. Methodology

Doctrinal and comparative legal research is used, with interdisciplinary insights from neuroscience and psychology. It emphasizes statutory analysis and judicial precedents.

Key Concepts and Frameworks

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Both elements are required for criminal liability. Crimes in altered states may lack both, challenging legal assumptions.

Automatism and Sleepwalking Defense

• Canada: R v Parks (1992) – Acquittal due to automatism.

• UK: R v Burgess (1991) – Treated as insanity.

• USA: State v Falater (1997) – Defense rejected.

• India: Limited precedent, but courts (e.g., Patreswar Basumatary v. State of Assam) have accepted lack of mens rea in dream-related acts.

Indian Legal Framework

1. Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS)

• Section 84: Provides defense for unsound mind; applicable to parasomnia.

• Section 21 & 105: Recognize automatism and medical conditions as defenses.

• Burden of proof remains on the accused.

2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)

• Modernizes evidence law.

• Allows expert evidence (Section 45), sleep studies (Section 64), and written statements (Section 47) to establish unconsciousness.

3. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

• Procedural enhancements:

  • Psychological/neurological assessments (Section 12, 127)

  • Victim compensation (Section 15)

  • Safeguards for involuntary confessions (Section 205)

Case Studies

India

• Patreswar Basumatary v. State of Assam (1988): Acquittal for dream-state homicide.

• Suraj Jadhav (2021): Call for legal clarity on automatism.

• Ramesh Kumar (2021): Acquittal based on documented parasomnia.

• Vikram Singh (2022): Reduced liability due to prior knowledge of sleep disorder.

International

• R v Parks (Canada): Acquittal based on sleepwalking.

• R v Burgess (UK): Found not guilty by reason of insanity.

• State v Falater (USA): Conviction despite sleepwalking claim.

• Early and recent cases show divergent legal treatments.

Ethical & Legal Considerations

• Balancing justice for victims vs. non-culpability of accused.

• Scientific uncertainty makes proving dream-induced acts difficult.

• Legal systems must adapt to advances in neuroscience.

Recommendations for Reform

1. Explicit recognition of parasomnia/automatism in BNS.

2. Mandatory sleep studies and expert testimony in such trials.

3. Shift burden of proof to prosecution in strong medical cases.

4. Judicial training in neuroscience and sleep disorders.

5. Alternative sentencing like treatment, monitoring, and restorative justice.

Conclusion

Dream-induced criminal acts challenge traditional legal principles of actus reus and mensrea,raisingcomplexquestionsaboutculpabilityandintent.Whileneuroscienceconfirmsthatconditionslikeparasomniacanleadtoinvoluntaryactions,thelawlacksaclearframeworkto address such cases consistently. Indian jurisprudence, through the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya SakshyaAdhiniyam (BSA), and Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), acknowledges involuntary acts but does not explicitly cover dream-related crimes, leading to legal ambiguity. To ensure justice aligns with scientific insights, Indian law must refine its approach. The BNS should explicitlyrecognize automatism as a defense, while the BSA should establish standardized guidelines for sleep studies and expert testimony. Judicial training in neuroscience and a tiered liability approach—distinguishing cases of complete involuntarinessfromnegligentdisregardofknownconditions—canprovidemorebalancedverdicts. As neuroscience advances, legal doctrines must adapt to uphold both fairness and public safety.Integratingmedicalexpertiseintolegalassessmentsandrefiningstatutoryprovisions will ensure a more just and scientifically informed legal system for cases involving altered states of consciousness.

References

Legislation [1] BhartiyaNyaySanhita,2023 [2] BhartiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam,2023 [3] BhartiyaNagrikSurakshaSanhita,2023 IndianCaseLaws [1] PatreswarBasumataryvStateofAssam(1988) GauhatiHC [2] AjmerSinghvStateofHaryana(2010)3SCC 112 [3] SurajJagannathJadhavvStateofMaharashtra(2021)5SCC 89 [4] StateofMaharashtravM. H.George (1965) 2SCC 125 [5] K.K.VermavUnionof India AIR1967SC 889 [6] K.P. Gokhale vState of Maharashtra(1973) 3 SCC 123 [7] StateofAndhraPradeshvNarasimhulu (2011) 3 SCC 102 [8] RamSinghvStateof Haryana (2018)6SCC 140 [9] RameshKumarvStateofMaharashtra[2021]INSC45 [10] VikramSinghvStateofUttarPradesh[2022]INSC89 InternationalCaseLaws [1] RvParks[1992]2SCR871 (SCC) [2] RvBurgess[1991]2QB92 (CA) [3] Statev Falater1997WL168318 (ArizonaSupreme Court) [4] MassachusettsvTirrell(1846)49Mass(5Met.) 317(SupremeJudicialCourt) [5] RvThomas[2008]EWCACrim1000 BooksandArticles [1] RvSchopp,Automatism,Insanity,andthePsychologyofCriminalResponsibility (Cambridge University Press 1991). [2] MichaelS.Gazzaniga,TheConsciousnessInstinct:UnravelingtheMysteryofHowthe Brain Makes the Mind (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2018) [3] R.D.Mackay,„CriminalResponsibilityandtheDefenceofAutomatism?(2011)31(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 531 [4] B.BlackandS.N.Sanders,„Neuroscience,SleepDisorders,andCriminalLiability?(2020) 42(2) Journal of Law and Medicine 187 [5] NPurohit,„NeuroscientificDefensesinCriminalLaw:TheCaseofSleepwalking?(2020) 12(4) Indian Journal of Criminology 178. [6] RAroraandPSingh,„ReevaluatingtheDefenseofAutomatisminIndianCriminalLaw:A Neuroscientific Perspective? (2023) 15 Indian Journal of Legal Studies 45. [7] AD?Rozarioandothers,„SleepwalkingandCriminalResponsibility:AnExaminationof Legal and Scientific Perspectives? (2020) 58 Neuropsychologia 312. ReportsandGuidelines [1] IndianLawCommission,ReportonCriminalResponsibilityandMentalDisorders(Law Commission of India Report No. 267, 2017) [2] NationalInstituteofMentalHealth,SleepDisordersandTheirImpactonConsciousness (NIMH Report, 2021) [3] SupremeCourtofIndia,JudicialHandbookonNeuroscienceandCriminalLaw(2023).

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Parth Sahu, Mr. Abhishek Mishra. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.