Gauhati High Court
State Of Manipur vs Saikhom Ramo Singh on 8 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)1GLR246
Bench: H.K.K. Singh, B. Lamare
JUDGMENT
H.K.K. Singh and B. Lamare, JJ.
1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Jugde (Fast Track Court, Manipur East), at Imphal under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. in respect of sentence of death passed by the Court in Sessions Trial No. 19/ME/IE/1985/401985/1/2002/6/2002 against the accused Saikhom Ramo Singh.
2. As the convicted accused is undefended the Court appointed Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh as Amicus Curiae for the defence of the accused convicted.
3. We have heard Mr. Jalal Uddin, learned P.P. for the State and also Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Amicus Curiae.
4. At the outset, the learned Amicus Curiae has clearly stated that no appeal has been preferred by the accused convict mainly because of the fact that the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court in conducting, the trial involving the accused who was suffering from unsoundness of mind is not in accordance with the provisions contemplated under Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C. To highlight his submission the learned Amicus Curiae has taken us to the record of the Trial Court convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarding the death sentence.
5. On perusal of the record of the Trial Court it is found that a situation arose at the commencement of the trial thus it becomes unnecessary for the Court to decide regarding the mental condition of the accused to find out as to whether the accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. Thus, the accused was caused to be examined by an expert. And the Doctor after examing the accused submitted his report (Exbt. C/1). Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge examined the said Doctor, namely Dr. L. Priyokumar Singh as Court witness No. 1 on 28.8.1985 and the Doctor gave his opinion that accused was of unsound mind. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge made further inquiry and came to the conclusion that the conclusion that the accused was incapable of making his defence. Thus, the trail was suspended. Again on 30.8.1985 the learned Sessions Judge passed necessary orders for treatment of the accused in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 330 of the Cr.P.C. on 6.12.1999 the learned Sessions Judge again reiterated the earlier decision that the accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence and as such the Court gave direction to the authorities to take proper steps in accordance with the provisions either under Section 338 or 339 Cr.P.C. on 1.3.2000, on the prayer of the Addl. Superintendent of Central Jail, Sajiwa the trail Judge passed an order thereby allowing the accused to be taken outside Manipur in a properly equipped mental hospital for treatment. Again, by that order also the learned Sessions Judge directed the authorities concerned to inform the guardian/relatives of the accused.
6. On 20.6.2000 the learned Judge again directed that the accused be kept in a psychiatric hospital or a psychiatric nursing home established under the Mental Health Act. And thereafter again on 21.3.2001 the learned Sessions Judge recorded that the trial of the accused should not be proceeded as he was of unsound mind and as such incapable of making his defence and the learned Judge passed specific order to put up the case on receipt of any report from the authorities about the mental condition of the accused.
7. On 13.2.2002 the case was transferred to the Fast Track Court and on 18.2.2002 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court recorded that the case should be taken up under Section 331 Cr.P.C. on receipt of the report under Section 337 from the concerned authority.
8. It appears that in the meantime a letter being No. 5/33/98-CJS(Pt) 348 dated 29.5.2002 of the Addl. Supdt. Central Jail, Sajiwa alongwith the copy of the medical treatment report of the Medical Superintendent, RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi-6 was received and accordingly the case was put up on 3.6.2002. And on 3.6.2002 the learned Sessions Judge recorded that the aforesaid letter alongwith the copy of the medical treatment report was seen and as such the case was fixed on 10.6.2002 for examination of prosecution witness. And after trial the judgments of conviction and sentence of death was passed.
9. The most important question to be considered is whether the trial was conducted or resumed after following the procedural requirement of law as provided for under Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C. for dealing with accused persons of unsound mind.
10. After making an inquiry under Section 328 Cr.P.C. the Court on finding that the accused was of unsound mind consequently incapable of making defence, trial was suspended under Section 329. The provision of Section 330 was complied with thereby passing an order for detaining the accused under the provision of Mental Health Act. The provisions of Section 331 and Section 332 of the Cr.P.C. are reproduced below :
"Section 331. Resumption of inquiry of trial. - (1) Whenever an inquiry or a trail is postponed under Section 328 or Section 329, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, may at any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind, resume the inquiry or trial, and require the accused to appear or be brought before such Magistrate or Court.
(2) When the accused has been released under Section 330, and the sureties for his appearance produce him to the officer whom the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf, the certificate of such officer that the accused is capable of making his defence shall be receivable in evidence.
Section 332. Procedure on accused appearing before Magistrate or Court.- (1) If, when the accused appears or is again brought before the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, the Magistrate or Court considers him capable of making his defence, the inquiry or trial shall proceed.
(2) If the Magistrate or Court considers the accused to be still incapable of making his defence the Magistrate or Court shall act according to the provisions of Section 328 or Section 329, as the case may be, and if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, shall deal with such accused in accordance with the provisions of Section 330."
Under Section 331 the Magistrate or the Court may resume the inquiry of the trial after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind and for that matter the Court will cause the accused to appear or be brought before the Court. And under Section 332, it is provided that the Court will resume the trail only when the Court considers that the accused is capable of making his defence.
11. Now, the question is whether Sections 331 and 332 require the Court to record reason, for its conclusion that the accused is capable of making his defence. Sub-Section 2 of Section 331 enables the certificate issued by an officer regarding capability or competence of the accused to make his defence. In our present case the learned Court has recorded that he had seen the letter dated 29.5.2002 of the Addl. Superintendent, Central Jail, Sajiwa and also the copy of the medical treatment report. Whether is it sufficient for the Court to proceed with the trail. The word "Considers" appearing in Section 332 of Cr.P.C. axiomaticaly implies that the Court should not only examine the medical certificate and also the Doctor if necessary but also should consider other factors and the accused should also be examined and only after due application of mind should come to the conclusion that the accused is capable of making his defence. The record does not show that the Court even examined the accused or put any question to the accused from which the Court may gather its finding that the accused is capable of making his defence. The fact that the report of the medical officer is admissible in evidence does not necessarily mean that it is conclusive proof regarding mental condition of the concerned individual. Even the report of the Medical Officer only reads :- "On treatment the patient made considerable improvement in his mental condition and physically and mentally fit for discharge and trail." Under law such opinion/findings is made admissible but how much weight may be attached or given to such opinion considering the nature of the case that the accused was facing a charge of offence of murder? We are of the opinion that the learned trial Court should have made a detailed examination regarding the mental condition of the accused to ascertain as to whether the accused was capable of making his defence. As noted above the learned Trial Judge has not even recorded that and he came to the conclusion that he considered the accused incapable of making his defence. The mere fact that on seeing the report of the Addl. S.P. and copy of the medical report, the trial was to be continued shall not, in the circumstances of the case be sufficient to hold that the Court made proper inquiry regarding mental condition of the accused for his defence. It may be noted here that even the Addl. Supdt. Central Jail, Sajiwa while forwarding the medical report did not even mention regarding the behaviour of mental condition of the accused.
12. In our considered opinion the word "considers" appearing in Section 332 Cr.P.C. requires that the Magistrate or the Court is to make an inquiry regarding the mental condition of the accused. In course of inquiry a memorandum of the examination of the accused must also be prepared. And on the basis of the evidence and other materials the Magistrate or the Court should come to a finding and a detailed reason should be recorded in the finding. The Magistrate or the Court should not mechanically act only on the report of the Medical Officer as a gospel truth. The recording of the reason and preparation of memorandum is emphasised as the said finding based upon the evidence and materials is to be reconsidered by the higher Court at the time of hearing of the appeal, revision, proceeding of reference like the present case.
13. For the foregoing reasons and conclusion we are of the opinion that the trail conducted and ultimate conclusion arrived at cannot stand in the eye of law. Accordingly, the whole proceedings of the trail including the judgment of conviction of sentence stands quashed. Case remanded for de novo trial as per law.
14. Reference answered accordingly. Before parting we keep on record the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.
15. Furnish copy of this order to the learned counsel on both sides and transmit the record back.