Kerala High Court
Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2394 of 2005 ( )
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 490/2001 of ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS FAST TRACK COURT NO-II, PALAKKAD DATED 27.08.2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 541/2001 of JUDICIAL MGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS-I,PALAKKAD DATED 19-11-2001
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
NARAYANAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR,
IRUVAKKATHU VEEDU, ANIKKODE,, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.G. LISHA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.2394 of 2005
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June 2016
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.490/2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-II, Palakkad. He was charge sheeted in C.C. No.541/2001 before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad for having committed an offence punishable u/s.452, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused u/s.452, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months u/s.452 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month u/s.294(b) IPC and simple imprisonment for one month u/s.506(i) IPC. Against that, he preferred the above Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 2 Crl.Appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Palakkad where the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence u/s.294(b) and the conviction and sentence u/s.452 and 506(i) IPC were confirmed. Being aggrieved by that, he approached this Court with this revision petition.
2. The charge against the accused was that on 4.1.1997 at 11.10 a.m., he trespassed into the court hall of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad with dangerous weapon for causing hurt and uttered obscene words in the court hall towards the Magistrate and threatened with chopper to cause death, thereby committed the offence. In this incident, Town South Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, Sub Inspector of Police laid charge in the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. During trial, Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 3 prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 and MO1 chopper was admitted as material object. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He examined DW1 and marked Ext.D1 in support of his defence.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the accused never entered inside the the court room and no offence u/s.452 IPC is committed. The revision petitioner is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for the past 12 years, which was not considered by the courts below.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the occurrence was proved in the trial Court and there is no misreading of evidence. Both courts opined that the house trespass was proved and the other contention is unbelievable. All factors highlighted by the accused were Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 4 considered by the trial Court. No contention was raised by the defence counsel in the trial Court with regard to unsoundness of mind during cross examination of the occurrence witnesses.
5. House trespass is defined u/s.442 IPC, which reads as follows:
"Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house -trespass."
Section 441 IPC reads as follows:
"Criminal trespass:- whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property; or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence is said to commit 'criminal trespass' Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 5 or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint is an offence under Section 452 IPC.
6. The occurrence was deposed by PW1, the duty Police Constable in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. His evidence shows that on 4.1.1997 while he was conducting duty in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III at 11 'O' clock, the accused trespassed into the court room with MO1. When the accused approached the Magistrate's Court dais and intimidated the Magistrate, PW1 obstructed him and seized MO1 from him. For that, he gave Ext.P1 statement to the Police. PW1 identified the accused and MO1 before Court. PW1 deposed that there was a direction to the accused to give maintenance to his wife. Provoked by that order, the revision petitioner committed the offence. Nothing has been brought out in Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 6 cross examination to show that the revision petitioner was a mentally ill person. PW2 the peon of that Court supported the evidence of PW1 and identified MO1 weapon. PW3 Bench Clerk and PW4 Advocate Clerk present in the Court room supported the evidence of PW1. Even though PW2 to PW4 were cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing has been asked during cross examination of these witnesses whether the revision petitioner was suffering from any mental illness. PW5 also gave similar version and he identified the accused. On a close scrutiny of the evidence, it is clear that he trespassed into the court room and intimidated the Magistrate inside the Court hall. Both courts below found that the revision petitioner trespassed into the court room and intimidated the Magistrate with MO1 weapon.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 7 submitted that as he was undergoing paranoid schizophrenia, he is entitled to get the protection u/s.84 of IPC. In order to get protection u/s.84 of IPC, the accused has to prove that the offence is done by him and at the time of doing that offence, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and incapable of knowing the nature of act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The words 'who is that Magistrate granted maintenance to his wife' uttered by the revision petitioner disclose that he was in a good mental condition to remember the order against him. If he is aware about the findings against him, it is presumed that at the time of doing the above offence, his mind was capable of knowing the nature of the law against him. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the protection. No scrap of paper has been produced in the trial Court to prove that he was Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 8 undergoing any treatment for schizophrenia. Even though DW1 deposed that he had treated him and Ext.D1 was produced in that trial Court, that itself is not sufficient to admit the defence contention with regard to schizophrenia. Such an opinion was not made by that doctor at the time of issuing Ext.D1. Apex Court in Sheralli Wall Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1972 SC 2443] held as follows:
".....The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or, the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broke open, would not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. We see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings on this point either."
Therefore, mere medical opinion without any treatment is not sufficient to admit the defence contention with regard Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 9 to the unsoundness of mind. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner at this stage are not sufficient to grant protection u/s.84 IPC. There is no merit in this revision petitioner and it is dismissed accordingly.
The revision petitioner is directed to surrender in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad to undergo the sentence confirmed by the appellate Court.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 10 Crl.R.P. No.2394/2005 11