Delhi District Court
4 vs . on 26 March, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 52854/16
FIR No. : 509/15
P.S. : Bharat Nagar
U/s : 307/452 IPC
Date of registration : 23122015
Reserved for Judgment on: 09032018
Judgment Announced on : 26032018
State
Vs.
Ishan Nagpal S/o Praveen Nagpal
R/o 6, Sindhora Kalan,
Sri Nagar Extension, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1.Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Richa Nagpal W/o Sagar Nagpal. According to the complainant on 16092015, at about 11:30 a.m she was present at her house and her brotherinlaw (devar) Ishan who is the son of her uncle (chacha sasur) came and asked about her motherinlaw Kiran. According to the complainant, she told him that her motherinlaw was taking bath, so he sat near her grand motherinlaw (dadi saas) Smt. Krishna Nagpal.
Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 1 of 23 22. According to the complainant, thereafter, she heard the scream of her grandmotherinlaw (dadi saas) who was screaming by taking the names of Sagar and Richa. Complainant went to the room where her grandmotherinlaw was sitting and saw that the neck of her grandmotherinlaw was cut and blood was oozing from her neck and the accused had gagged her mouth and nose. According to the complainant, when she tried to save her grandmotherinlaw accused pulled her hair and gave her legs and fist blows. However, they succeeded in freeing themselves from the clutches of accused. According to the complainant accused went out of the room and the complainant bolted the room from inside and raised an alarm. On this Kiran Nagpal (motherinlaw) of the complainant who was taking bath in the attached bath room of that room came out and she also raised alarm and made a call at No. 100.
3. According to the complainant before coming of the neigbours, accused ran away from there and her grandmotherinlaw Smt. Krishna Nagpal was removed to Sundar Lal Jain Hospital by Devender Nagpal, uncle of the complainant. According to the complainant, thereafter, police reached the spot and her statement was recorded. According to the complainant, accused inflicted knife injuries on the neck of her grandmotherinlaw ( dadi sas) Smt. Krishna Nagpal with the intention to kill her and when she tried to save her grandmotherinlaw (dadi sas), he also gave beatings to her.
4. F.I.R. bearing No. 509/15, was registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar and investigation went underway. During the course of investigation accused was arrested. After completion of investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 2 of 23 3 prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
5. On 18012016, a charge U/s 307/452 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses.
7. PW 1 H.C. Ravinder is the duty officer. He proved on record photocopy of DD No. 20 A as Ex. PW 1/A vide which he received the PCR call. He further proved on record copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 1/B, endorsement made by him on the rukka regarding registration of the FIR as Ex. PW 1/C and certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 1/D.
8. PW 2 Krishna Nagpal, PW 3 Ms. Richa Nagpal and PW 4 Kiran Nagpal are the material public witnesses of the case and I will discuss their testimonies in the later part of the judgment.
9. PW 5 Ct. Sandeep is the photographer of the crime team who on 16092015, alongwith crime team incharge ASI Rajbir visited at the spot and took photographs of the spot and also prepared the CD. He deposed that the photographs and CD have been prepared from the computer system and images are true saved in digital camera. He proved on record the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 5/A, photographs as Ex. PW 5/A1 to Ex. PW 5/A16 (Colly.) and the corresponding CD as Ex.PW 5/B.
10. PW 6 is Ct. Anil who on 16092015, was working as finger print proficient in Crime Team, North West District and on that day on the receipt of Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 3 of 23 4 information from control room, he alongwith incharge crime team ASI Rajbir and photographer Ct. Sandeep reached at the spot i.e. B30, First floor Satyawati Colony, Phase3 Ashopk Vihar, Delhi, where in the room, they found that blood was scattered and one blood stained knife was lying there. He further deposed that he tried to lift chance print from the knife, but the same could not be found.
11. PW 7 is H.C. Rakesh, who on 16092015, was posted at PS Bharat Nagar. PW 7 H.C. Rakesh remained associated with the IO SI Rakesh Kumar during the investigation of the case on 16092015. He narrated about the sequence of investigation done by the IO in his presence on 16092015. He proved on record seizure memo of the blood stained clothes of the injured which were seized by the IO in the hospital in a cloth pullanda as Ex. PW 7/A. He identified the accused and the case property.
12. PW 8 is H.C. Dharamvir who on 16092015 was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and he also remained associated with the IO during the investigation of the case on 16092015. PW 8 took the rukka prepared by IO SI Rakesh to the police station for the registration of the case and got the present case registered. He also narrated about the sequence of investigation done by the IO in his presence on 16092015.
13. PW 9 ASI Rajbir is the Incharge Crime Team who on 16092015, visited the spot at B30, First Floor, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIII, Delhi and after reaching there he inspected the spot and prepared his report. He proved on record his report as Ex. PW 9/A. Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 4 of 23 5
14. PW 10 Dr. Dharmender Singh is the Medical Officer, Sunder Lal Jain, Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on 16092015, at about 12:15 p.m, he examined one patient Krishna Nagpal who was brought by her son Ashok Kumar. He proved on record the MLC of Krishna Nagpal as Ex. PW 10/A and deposed that after discussing with ENT surgeon and surgeon, he gave the opinion of injury at point A on MLC Ex. PW 10/A. He further deposed that the kind of weapon was sharp.
15. PW 11 SI Rakesh Rana is the IO of the case. He unfolded the sequence of investigation done by him. He proved on record endorsement made by him on the statement of complainant as Ex. PW 11/A and application moved by him for seeking opinion on the MLC of injured as Ex. PW 11/B. He identified the accused and the case property.
16. PW 12 ASI Niyazuddin is the MHC(M). He proved on record the relevant entries made by him in register No. 19 regarding the deposition of the exhibits of the case in the malkhana. He proved on record entry No. 1196 made by him in register No. 19 as Ex. PW 12/1. He further proved on record the copy of road certificate No. 144/21/15 as Ex. PW 12/2 vide which the exhibits of the case were sent to FSL through constable Naveen on 09122015. He further deposed that after depositing the exhibits at FSL, Ct. Naveen Kumar had deposited with him the receipt of RC and acknowledgment from FSL. He proved on record the acknowledgment from FSL as Ex. PW 12/3.
17. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to him Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 5 of 23 6 accused denied the same and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he has been undergoing the treatment for the last about 6 years for border line personality disorder. He further sated that he also suffers fits occasionally and during fits, he act abnormally without control of his senses. He further stated that present incident is also result of a fit caused due to his mental disorder. He further stated that his family members more particularly injured PW 2 Smt. Krishna Nagpal are also aware about this fact and that is why they have appraised the Court also regarding his illness.
18. Accused also led defence evidence and in his defence he examined Dr. Vimal Kumar, Psychiatrist as DW 1. I will discuss his testimony in the later part of the judgment.
19. I have heard, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the state and Sh. Sachin Dev Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records of this case.
20. It is submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the state that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the material available on record, the accused is liable to be convicted. It is further urged by him that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further urged by him that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC as he was of sound mind at the time of commission of offence and knew the consequences of his act.
21. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. defence counsel that Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 6 of 23 7 accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of offence and he was not aware about the consequence of his act. It is further urged by him that the accused has been receiving treatment for his mental condition for the last about 6 years. It is further urged by him that DW 1 Dr. Vimal Kumar has categorically stated that the accused was under his treatment for many years and in this regard DW1 has proved medical record of the accused. He further urged that the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 84 of IPC.
22. Now first of all before considering the defence of insanity of the accused it is to be seen as to whether the accused had committed the offence for which he has been charged.
23. The accused in the present case has been charged U/s 307/452 IPC.
According to the case of the prosecution the accused has inflicted knife injury on the throat of his grandmother PW 2 Smt. Krishna Nagpal. She has deposed that the accused is her grandson and is a patient of border line personality disorder and in the rage of fit he had attacked her with a kitchen knife on her throat. She has further deposed that about 5 months prior to the date of incident at about 11:00 a.m she was present in the room of her daughterinlaw Kiran and was resting.
24. She further deposed that her servant came in her room as he wanted to change bed sheet of the bed. In the meanwhile, her grand son Ishan Nagpal (accused) came there and helped her sit on the sofa lying in the bedroom. After changing the bed sheet accused again helped her to her bed. She deposed that as she sat on the bed, suddenly accused pressed her neck down Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 7 of 23 8 words and hit her with a knife on her throat. Immediately her grand daughter inlaw Richa Nagpal came and saved her from the accused. On hearing the cries of Richa Nagpal accused ran away from the room. She has further deposed that on seeing her condition servant raised alarm and on hearing his alarm some labourers who were working in her house rushed to the room. She deposed that Raju, son of his brotherinlaw Mukand Lal rushed inside the room and took her to the Sunder Lal Hospital. She failed to identify the knife with which according to the prosecution the accused had attacked her. However, she identified her shirt, Ladies salwar and white bra which according to her she was wearing at the time of the incident.
25. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. CPP. In her cross examination she denied that she has stated to the police that accused took out a small knife from his pocket and with the intention to kill stabbed her on her neck. She further denied that when she tried to rescue herself accused stabbed her on her right hand with the knife. She denied that she stated to the police that accused gagged the mouth of her grand daughterinlaw Richa who tried to save her. She further denied that accused pulled hair of Richa and attacked her with punches and leg blows. She denied that she told to the police in her statement that accused ran away from the room after showing the knife.
26. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel. The cross examination of Ld. defence counsel is very crisp and he has not touched the testimony of PW 2 with regard to the role of the accused, manner in which Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 8 of 23 9 the offence has been committed and the recovery. Since the defence taken by the accused is that of insanity, he has confined the cross examination of PW 2 to that extent only. In the cross examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW 2 has stated that she has cordial relations with accused and his family throughout. She admitted that accused is suffering from border line personality disorder and in the rage of fit he had attacked. She also admitted that the accused is under treatment for mental disorder for the last 56 years from different hospitals and there was no other reason with the accused to attack her. The hostility of this witness has no effect on her testimony as far as she has deposed about the role of accused.
27. Another material witness is PW 3 Richa Nagpal who is the daughter inlaw of PW 2. She has deposed that on 16092015 at about 11:30 a.m she was present at her house with her motherinlaw namely Kiran Nagpal and grandmotherin law Smt. Krishna Nagpal. She has further deposed that her brotherinlaw i.e. accused came to her house and she opened the door and he asked for her motherinlaw. She has deposed that she told the accused that her motherinlaw was in the wash room and then the accused asked for her grandmotherinlaw.
28. She further deposed that since her grandmotherinlaw was in the room of her motherinlaw, so the accused went there. Within 23 minutes she heard shrieks of her grandmotherinlaw so she rushed towards the room of her grandmotherinlaw and saw that throat of her grandmotherinlaw was slit and she was bleeding profusely. She further deposed that accused Ishan Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 9 of 23 10 was muzzling the mouth of her grandmotherinlaw by putting his hand across her mouth and nose. She further deposed that she tried to rescue her grand mother inlaw but accused started punching and kicking her but some how she rescued herself and her grandmotherinlaw from the clutches of the accused. She further deposed that thereafter accused ran towards kitchen. She further deposed that she and her grandmotherinlaw raised an alarm and in the meanwhile her motherinlaw namely Kiran Nagpal who was inside the washroom of the said room came outside and she also shouted for help and made a call at No. 100 and thereafter Smt. Krishna Nagpal was removed to Sunderlal Hospital by Devender Nagapal. She proved on record her statement made to the police as Ex. PW 3/A. She further proved on record seizure memos of blood stained bandage, blood stained bed sheet, blood stained handkerchief, blood stained pair of sandals/slippers, sketch of knife and seizure memo of blood stained knife as Ex. PW 3/B to Ex. PW 3/G respectively. She further proved on record the site plan of the house as Ex. PW 3/H, arrest memo of the accused as Ex. PW 3/J and his personal search memo as Ex. PW 3/K. She further deposed that the accused was interrogated vide Ex. PW 3/L. She identified the accused and the case property.
29. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and as is the case of PW 2 no question regarding the incident has been put to this witness also. In her cross examination she has stated that she has cordial relations with the accused and his family throughout. She admitted that accused is suffering from border line personality disorder and in the rage of fit Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 10 of 23 11 he had attacked. She also admitted that the accused is undergoing treatment for mental disorder for the last 56 years form different hospitals.
30. Another material witness is PW4 Kiran Nagpal. She has deposed that on 16092015, at about 11:30 a.m, she was present in the washroom and she came out after hearing cries of her daughterinlaw Richa Nagpal and motherin law Kiran Nagpal. When she came out she saw that her motherinlaw was bleeding profusely from her neck. She raised an alarm. She deposed that her brotherinlaw Devender Nagpal took her motherinlaw to Sunder Lal hospital.
31. This witness has also been cross examined by the counsel for the accused only to the extent of mental disability of the accused and the counsel for the accused has not tested her testimony in the cross examination with regard to the deposition made by her about the incident.
32. In her cross examination she has also stated as stated by PW 2 and PW 3 that the relations are cordial between her family and the family of the accused. She has also admitted that the accused is taking treatment for his mental disorder for the last 56 yeas and he has no reason to attack his grand mother.
33. So all the public witnesses have corroborated each other on all the material aspects of the case. The version of PW 2 regarding inflicting injury by accused on her throat with knife has also been corroborated by PW 3 and PW
4. All the 3 witnesses have also in unison stated that accused was present at their house at the time of incident.
34. As far as the cross examination of the witnesses, their testimonies Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 11 of 23 12 with regard to the role of the accused and the injuries inflicted by him has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. So I have no reason to disbelieve the version of these witnesses that the accused has committed the act.
35. The defence has proceeded on the premise that the accused is entitled to benefit of Section 84 of the IPC as he was incapable of knowing the nature of act or that what he was doing with his grand mother was either wrong or not according to law.
36. The law relating to the defence under Section 84 IPC: Section 84 IPC underscores that mens rea is an essential element in a crime. It contemplates a situation where the person committing the crime may not at the time of such commission of crime, be aware of what he is doing. The rationale behind the defence under Section 84 IPC was explained by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Datta (2012) 1 SCC 602 in the following words:
"To commit a criminal offence, mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said furiosi nulla voluntus est. In other words, a person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 12 of 23 13 responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behavior.
37. The expression used in Section 84 IPC is 'unsoundness of mind' and not 'insanity'. This appears to be for good reason since the expression 'insanity' apart from being stigmatic does not account for the varying degrees of unsoundness of the mind, all of which may not qualify for the defence under Section 84 IPC. In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109 the Supreme Court observed:
"Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term 'insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity."
38. In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495, it was Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 13 of 23 14 pointed out that "every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability." in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 748, which was a case where the defense under Section 84 IPC on the ground of paranoid schizophrenia was accepted, the Supreme Court explained that "it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record" which would prove that the Appellant in that case was suffering from the said condition. It was added: "The unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact."
39. Medical literature: Now turning to the medical literature specific to bipolar disorder, Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (24th Edition), at page 753 defines 'Bipolar Disorder' as 'Manic Depressive Psychosis'. It describes the affliction thus:
"Bipolar disorder is used for a group of mental illnesses with primary disturbances of affect, from which all other symptoms arise. The affect i.e., the mood varies between extreme poles of cheerfulness and sadness. The illness has a second characteristic of periodicity. The third characteristic is returning to normalcy from attack, without impairment of mental integrity. In practice, one finds that a single attack of a mania or a single attack of depression can occur. It occurs in persons predisposed to mood disturbances."
xxx "The depressives rarely indulge in petty crimes. A minority Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 14 of 23 15 may commit altruistic type of homicide. Aggressive impulses are normally inhibited by the psychotic condition.
Hypochondrial delusions are often associated with homicidal impulses. Hence, near relatives may be killed in order to prevent them from inheriting or developing some serious disease. The psychotic depressive kills from motive, to his way of thinking, and is inherently good as opposed to the person with paranoid illness, who is motivated by spite and a desire to avenge the imaginary wrong.
Homicidal and suicidal tendencies frequently coexist in depressives, which stems from hopelessness, futility and despair. They believe that the killing of loved ones followed by selfdestruction is the only practical solution."
40. In the Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology edited by Jennifer M. Brown and Elizabeth A. Campbell, (4th Printing 2013), it is interalia observed that bipolar disorder, previously known as manic depression, has a mean onset age of about 30 and is characterized by mood swings that can range from extreme happiness (mania) to extreme sadness (depression) over a period of days or months. It is further noted that :
"In the depressive phase, symptoms include feeling sad and hopeless, lack of energy, difficulty concentrating, loss of interest in everyday activities, difficulty sleeping, feelings of worthlessness and despair, and suicidal thoughts. In the Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 15 of 23 16 manic phase, which usually comes after several periods of depression, symptoms may include feeling elated and full of energy, talking very quickly, and feeling selfimportant with great ideas not known to others, but also being easily distracted, irritated or agitated, not sleeping or eating, and doing things that bring negative consequences, such as over spending and dominating others.
Delusions stemming from these disorders can lead the individuals concerned to become violent, for example if they believe that the lives of their families have become intolerable (depressive phase), or where they believe that no one must stand in the way of their important plans (manic phase). The mental disorder can contribute directly to serious violence, e.g. multiple homicide of loved family members. As with schizophrenia, the precise cause of bipolar disorder is unknown, although it is thought to involve physical, environmental and social factors, with about 1015% of sufferers nearest relatives also being affected."
41. In an article titled Patients with Affective Disorders admitted to Maximum Secure Care (19992003) authored by T. White, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist based in Perth, Australia (printed in Med.Sci.Law (2005) Vol. 45 No. 2 p.142), it is noted that :
"The McArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 16 of 23 17 (Steadman et al.,1998) recently reported that patients with bipolar disorder or major depression were more likely than those with schizophrenia to be violent over the course of a year. Similarly, Swanson et al. (1990) in an early analysis of the National Institute for Mental Health Catchment Area Study, reported an equally strong association for depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia with reported violence. In addition, the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicides and Homicides (Appleby, 1999) appeared to demonstrate a stronger relationship between depressive symptoms than positive psychotic symptoms in mentally disordered homicide offenders."
42. For the purposes of section 84 IPC, the accused has to show that at the time when the crime was committed, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or not according to law. In this regard reference may be made to the observations made in Radhey Shyam Vs. State ILR 2010 Suppl. (2) Delhi 475 as under :
"38 It would be virtually impossible to lead direct evidence of what was the exact mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime. Thus, law permits evidence to be led wherefrom the trier of the facts can form an opinion regarding the mental status of the accused at the time when the crime was committed. Thus, evidence Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 17 of 23 18 which can be led can be characterized as of inferential insanity.......This evidence, common sense tells us would be the immediately preceding and immediately succeeding conduct of the accused as also the contemporaneous conduct of the accused.
39 Thus, with reference to the past medical evidence or the medical history of the accused as the backdrop, the duty of the Court is to evaluate the conduct of the accused before, at the time of and soon after the crime and then return a finding of fact, whether the accused was of such unsound mind that by reason of unsoundness he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done or incapable of knowing that the act was wrong or contrary to law xxx
46. Thus, a fair trial would require that if there is available proof before the Judge that the accused was suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder i.e. there was a history of insanity, it is the duty of he court to require the investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place the evidence before the Court as observed in the decision reported as AIR 2009, SC 97 Sidhapal Kamala Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra."Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 18 of 23 19
43. In order to prove that accused is entitled to benefit of section 84 IPC, in defence Dr. Vimal Kumar has been examined as DW 1, who has deposed that he is psychiatrist by profession and pursued MD (Psychiatrist). He deposed that accused Ishan Nagpal is his patient since April 2012 and he is suffering from Border Line Personality Disorder with Impulse Control Disorder. He further deposed that accused was suffering from this disease with the symptoms that he was not able to control his actions, his emotions, physical and intellectual acts, anxiety, fits or anger as well as seizure disorder. Accused was prone to cause self injury as well as injury to others and was not able to maintain relations. Ld. defence counsel has placed 38 photocopies of the prescriptions for the period from April 2012 to August 2017 to which DW 1 deposed that all these prescriptions are in his handwriting bearing his signatures at point A. DW 1 proved on record the photocopies of the prescriptions as Ex. DW 1/A1 to Ex. DW 1/A38. He further deposed that the patient is still under treatment and is showing sign of recovery.
44. DW 1 further deposed that he knew the fact that in September, 2015, accused attacked his grand mother Smt. Krishna Nagpal. DW 1 further deposed that accused did so under fit of impulsive behaviour and anxiety. He further deposed that even after the incident, he gave him treatment and accused must not have controlled his senses as he was suffering from impulsive disorder of anxiety. DW 1 further mentioned that patient remains otherwise normal when he is not in the fits of impulsive disorder.
45. This witness has been cross examined at length by the Ld. CPP for Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 19 of 23 20 the state and in his cross examination by the Ld. CPP for the state, he has stated that the patient i.e. accused cannot be cured from this illness permanently, however, this disorder can only be controlled by medicines and true psychotherapy. In his further cross examination he stated that he examined the patient and gave advise on visit basis. He further stated that old record of his clinic has been weeded out and he can produce treatment record from his clinic for the last 23 years including the period prior to September 2015.
46. On this point, his cross examination was deferred and he was asked to produce the original record of his clinic for the treatment of accused including the period prior to September 2015. In his further cross examination he produced all the records w.e.f. January 2015 till 06122017 which are Ex. DW 1/B 1 to Ex. DW 1/B 17 respectively. He further stated in his cross examination that the accused cannot be cured permanently and can be controlled only by medicines and psychotherapy. He denied the suggestion that he has manipulated the records in this case.
47. Now from the testimony of this witness, it is crystal clear that the accused is patient of Border Line Personality Disorder with Impulse Control Disorder and is unable to control his actions, emotions, anxiety, fits of anger and as per DW 1 he is also prone to cause self injury and injury to others and is not in a position to maintain relations. Accused is under the treatment of DW 1 since April 2012, meaning thereby the accused has a history of the disease as stated by DW 1. DW 1 has also produced treatment record of the accused from January 2015 as old record in his clinic has been weeded out.
Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 20 of 23 2148. The incident is dated 16092015, and at the time of the incident the accused was under treatment of DW 1 for his above said ailment. Even PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 have also categorically stated in their cross examinations that the accused was suffering from border line personality disorder and in the rage of fit he had attacked and the accused is undergoing treatment for mental disorder for the last 56 years from different hospitals. They also stated that there was no other reason with the accused for which he attacked.
49. So in view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the accused can be said to have discharged the burden placed upon him U/s 84 of the IPC by producing the record of his treatment which he was receiving for his mental condition prior to the occurrence. What precisely the mental condition of the accused was at the time of the occurrence may never be known because according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the term "insanity" itself has no precise definition.
50. It was explained in Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109 as under:
"... But the term 'insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity."
51. Again in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 748, the Supreme Court explained as under:
"it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 21 of 23 22 the evidence on record which would prove that the Appellant in that case was suffering from the said condition. It was added: "The unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact."
52. There are certain circumstances which points towards the possibility of the accused being driven to commit the crime at a time when he was not in complete control of his senses. DW 1 has deposed that the accused is prone to causing injury to himself and to other persons and also not able to maintain relations. DW 1 has also stated that he knew the fact that in September, 2015, accused attacked on his grandmother Smt. Krishna Nagpal and he did so under fit of impulsive behaviour and anxiety.
53. The record reveals that the accused entered the house of his grand mother peacefully and rather he helped her grand mother shifting places at the time of changing bed sheet and suddenly he gave knife injury on the neck of his grand mother and even pressed her nose and mouth. This conduct of the accused shows about his mental condition at the time of incident which is corroborated by the medical evidence brought on record and by the testimonies of witnesses PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4. Therefore, the plea of unsoundness of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the crime is accepted.
54. There is a requirement U/s 334 Cr.P.C that when such a plea is accepted the findings shall state specifically whether he committed the act or not. In view of the testimonies of PW 2 Krishna Nagpal, PW 3 Ms. Richa Nagpal and PW 4 Kiran Nagpal, I hold that the accused had committed the act for which he has been charged. But the accused was for the reasons of unsoundness of Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 22 of 23 23 mind as discussed hereinabove in the judgment was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was contrary to law. The accused is, therefore stands acquitted in the manner indicated.
55. In compliance of Section 437 A Cr.P.C., the accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount and considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, the surety shall additionally undertake that the accused would continue to receive treatment under the close supervision of the mental health professional as long as the said mental health professional consider the treatment necessary. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 26032018.) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH / WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Sessions Case No: 52854/16 Page 23 of 23