Delhi District Court
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma on 6 September, 2014
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE -01: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.48/13.
PS- MODEL TOWN.
U/S.397 READ WITH 401 Cr.P.C.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DELHI ......REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SHRI RAVI DUTT SHARMA
S/O. SHRI PALE RAM SHARMA,
R/O. E-279, MCD COLONY,
AZADPUR, DELHI-110009. .......RESPONDENT
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2013 PASSED BY
SHRI DHEERAJ MOR, LD. MM, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI, PS-MODEL TOWN, IN FIR NO.467/10,
TITLED AS STATE VS RAVI DUTT SHARMA U/S.
452/324 IPC.
Date of Assignment:14.12.2013
Date of Argument:05.08.2014
Date of Order:06.09.2014
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I will dispose off the present Revision Petition filed by the State u/s. 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 27.09.2013 passed by ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Case FIR No. 467/10, PS - Model Town whereby respondent/accused was discharged by the Court.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that FIR No.467/10, PS Model Town, was registered with the allegations that on 06.12.2010 at about 6:45p.m., respondent/accused entered the house of the complainant CR NO.48/13: STATE VS RAVI DUTT SHARMA//PS-MODEL TOWN 1 OF PAGE 5 :2: and started misbehaving her and when she raised objections he inflicted injuries on the complainant and her son. He also allegedly attacked the mother in law of the complainant, when she tried to intervened and also caused injuries on certain neighbours.
3. At the stage of consideration of charge, ld. MM taken into consideration the report of board of five doctors of IHBAS dated 19.09.2013. The said report reflects that, as per the record, the accused was suffering from mental illness (Paranoid Schizophrenia), a type of severe mental disorder since the year 2007. In the OPD follow up dated 10.12.2010, there was clear documentation of active signs/symptoms of the said mental illness. He was admitted in the Ward on 20.12.2010 through emergency. It was opined by the doctors that he was symptomatic in that period (i.e. 26.11.2010 to 10.12.2010) and as per the examination of the patient done later, it was opined by the doctor that, he does not seem to have sound understanding of the nature of his act at the time of commission of the said offence. Looking at the said report and the entire circumstance, the Court of ld. MM came to the conclusion that accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence and, hence, his act was duly covered within the ambit of Section 84 IPC and he was accordingly granted the benefit of the same and he was discharged from this case.
4. The present revision petition has been filed by the State challenging the said order of ld. MM dated 27.09.2013 through which CR NO.48/13: STATE VS RAVI DUTT SHARMA//PS-MODEL TOWN 2 OF PAGE 5 :3: accused was discharged.
5. Notice of this revision petition was issued to the respondent and in pursuance of the same, his counsel appeared and contested the present revision petition.
6. I have heard Shri A.K. Gupta, ld. Addl. PP for the State/Revisionist and Shri Y.P. Rana, ld. Counsel for the Respondent and I have carefully perused the trial court record.
7. It is argued by ld. Addl. PP for the State/Revisionist that the said order of ld. MM dated 27.09.2013 is bad in law because the provisions of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been followed by ld. MM, while passing the said order. It is argued that as per Section 328 and 329 Cr.P.C. it was essential for ld. MM to examine the doctors who had examined the accused in order to come to the conclusion that he was of unsound mind and only then he could have proceeded further in the matter.
8. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent/accused is vehemently controverted the said contentions and it is argued that ld. MM has rightly given the benefit of Section 84 IPC. to which accused after going through the report of IHBAS, because accused was examined by Board of five Doctors, who examined him and gave their detailed report about the state of mind of the accused.
9. I have perused the Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C., which deals with provisions as to accused persons of unsound mind. In my view, CR NO.48/13: STATE VS RAVI DUTT SHARMA//PS-MODEL TOWN 3 OF PAGE 5 :4: Section 328 Cr.P.C. deals with those situations where the Magistrate is holding an inquiry about a person being of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. This, in my view, is possible only when chargesheet has not been filed by the police. After the filing of the chargesheet, Section 329 Cr.P.C. comes into play because it uses words"Trial". If during trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Sessions, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable for making his defence, the Court after considering such medical and other evidene as may be produced, shall refer such person to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist and before coming to the final conclusion, the court has to examine the expert in Court.
10. In the present case, it is not the case that respondent/ accused was of unsound mind and hence incapable of making his defence at that stage of charge, when the impugned order was passed. Hence, Section 329 Cr.P.C. does not come into play here. In my view, Section 328 Cr.P.C. shall also not to be attracted in the present case because ld., MM was not holding of inquiry as to whether accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence.
11. In the present case, the incident in question occurred on 06.12.2010. After the investigation was complete, police filed chargesheet in Court. At the stage of consideration on charge, the Court took into consideration, the reports of doctors of IHBAS which pertained to the CR NO.48/13: STATE VS RAVI DUTT SHARMA//PS-MODEL TOWN 4 OF PAGE 5 :5: period of 2007 - December 2010, because the date of the incident was falling between the said period and after considering the entire circumstances, ld. MM came to the conclusion that, he was of unsound mind at the time of commission of offence and, hence, gave benefit of Section 84 IPC to the accused.
12. In my view, in view of above discussion, it is clear that at the stage of consideration of charge, ld. MM was not required to follow up the provisions of Chapter XXV Cr.P.C. because that is not meant for situation. In my view, at the stage of consideration of charge, ld. MM rightly considered and went through report of IHBAS whereby the Board of five doctors of the said hospital gave their report dated 19.09.2013 and after perusing the same, ld. MM came to the conclusion that the accused was of unsound mind on the date of commission of offence i.e. 06.12.2010 and hence, he was discharged from the case by granting benefit of Section 84 IPC.
13. In my view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of ld. MM dated 27.09.2013 by which accused was discharged.
14. In totality of the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back to the trial court concerned alongwith copy of order. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (DEEPAK GARG) today i.e. dated 06.09.2014. ADDL. SESSION JUDGE -01 (NORTH) ROHINI COURTS:DELHI CR NO.48/13: STATE VS RAVI DUTT SHARMA//PS-MODEL TOWN 5 OF PAGE 5