Jharkhand High Court
Saraswati Rani vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2016 CRI. L. J. 4877, 2016 (3) AJR 795 (2017) 2 JLJR 147, (2017) 2 JLJR 147
Author: D. N. Upadhyay
Bench: D. N. Upadhyay, Ratnaker Bhengra
1 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005
Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005
[Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2005,
passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in
Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004/ 82 of 2004 arising out of Kathikund P.S.
Case No. 30/2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 519/ 2003]
Saraswati Rani, wife of Kartik Dehri, Resident of - Village -
Masania, P.S. Kathikund, District - Dumka, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
...
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant :Ms. Amrita Bannerjee, Amicus curiae.
For the State :Mr. V.K. Gupta, APP
13/17.03.2016Heard the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred from Jail against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2005, passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004/ 82 of 2004 arising out of Kathikund P.S. Case No. 30/2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 519/2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer R.I. for three months.
3. The facts emerging from the fardbayan of Kartik Dehri (P.W.7) recorded on 11.06.2003 at 10:00 a.m. is that on 10.06.2003, the appellant killed her son Mantu Dehri, aged 9 years and after committing murder she was found sleeping besides the dead body. When Munia Devi (P.W.1) witnessed the incident, she raised hulla and informed the villagers. The informant who happens to be father of the deceased, rushed to the place and saw the dead 2 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005 body of his son Mantu Dehri. It is disclosed in the fardbayan itself that appellant was suffering from mental disorder since last four years. It is also disclosed that the appellant was assaulted by the villagers. The informant produced his wife Saraswati Rani (appellant) along with the weapon of crime before the Police. On the basis of fardbayan of Kartik Dehri, Kathikund P.S. Case No. 30/2003, dated 11.06.2003, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was registered.
The police after due investigation submitted chargesheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.C. No. 107/2004. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was framed to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to substantiate charges examined altogether 9 witnesses and proved documents like fardbayan, formal F.I.R., postmortem report etc..
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of her son and inflicted sentence as indicated above.
4. The learned counsel Ms. Amrita Bannerjee appointed as amicus curiae has challenged the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted under the exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. On the date on which she had killed her son, her mental condition was not good and in that state of mind, the offence was committed. The appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of occurrence which could well be gathered from the lower court record. The occurrence took place on 10.06.2003, F.I.R. was registered on 3 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005 11.06.2003 on the basis of fardbayan of Kartik Dehri (P.W.7), the appellant was remanded to jail custody on 12.06.2003 and on the very next date i.e. 13.06.2003, the Jail Superintendent sent letter no. 602 to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, disclosing therein that Saraswati Rani (appellant) wife of Kartik Dehri is suffering from mental disorder and she has been admitted to Dumka Sadar Hospital for her treatment. A Medical Board was constituted who examined Saraswati Rani (appellant) and after examining the appellant, recommended to send the patient to RINPAS for further treatment. The Jail Superintendent by aforesaid letter has sought permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the appellant to RINPAS for her treatment. The permission was accorded on the very next day vide order dated 14.06.2003 passed in G.R. no. 519/2003.
From the letter no. 4179, dated 17.03.2016, received from Medical Superintendent, RINPAS, Ranchi it appears that appellant was under treatment from 15.06.2003 to 22.02.2004 and again she was admitted to the Hospital and treated between the period 28.08.2005 to 27.05.2006. By referring above documents and the report received from RINPAS it is submitted that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental disorder at the time of occurrence and in that state of unsoundness of mind she had killed her son Mantu Dehri, then aged about 9 years and after committing murder she was sleeping near the dead body. The conduct of the appellant and the report received from RINPAS clearly suggests that she was unaware about her act and the consequences thereof. The appellant is entitled for the exception prescribed under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. There was no mens rea or motive against killing of son by his mother. The prime question is that as to for what reason and with which motive the appellant killed her own son. Since the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia, she was 4 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005 incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by her and was not understanding as to what was done by her and whether it is wrong or contrary to law and this incapacity of the appellant was because of her unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the crime.
Learned counsel has relied on the Judgment delivered in the case of Lakhan Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007(2) East Cr. C. 420 (Jhr.) in which death sentence was passed but the appellant stood acquitted considering the exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the appellant is fully covered by the aforesaid Judgment of this Hon'ble Court. The learned Trial Judge has not considered the exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and has wrongly held the appellant guilty.
It is further submitted that informant who is none else but the husband of the appellant and father of deceased, himself has disclosed in the fardbayan that the appellant has been suffering from mental disorder since last four years. The appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of occurrence, find support from the evidence of other witnesses too. By referring Section 84 IPC, it was contended that nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing nature of the act, or that he/she is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. From the evidence available on record and statement of appellant, it is clear that she was incapable of knowing nature of the act and she was suffering from mental disorder at the time when offence was committed. Under such circumstances the impugned Judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitle for the benefits contained under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
5 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005
5. Learned APP has opposed the argument and submitted that no previous incident prior to the occurrence has been brought on record that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder. However, learned APP concedes that just after remand of the appellant in the present case, she was admitted to Sadar Hospital, Dumka and after being examined by the Medical Board, she was sent to RINPAS for her treatment. It is submitted that this plea was not taken by the appellant at the initial stage and she was found capable of understanding the consequences of trial. She had denied the charge leveled against her. No evidence has been adduced by the appellant either documentary or oral to prove that she was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of occurrence.
6. Heard both sides and examined the case records. Although the appellant neither examined any witness nor brought on record any document to prove that she was suffering from schizophrenia and she was incapable of understanding the act committed by her and the consequences thereof but the documents available with case record proves that after her remand to jail custody, she was immediately removed to Sadar Hospital, Dumka for her treatment. She was examined by a Medical Board and the Medical Board has recommended to shift her to RINPAS for her treatment. It further transpires from the record that she was under treatment at RINPAS for about 7 - 8 months. After one year again she was admitted to RINPAS for further treatment. The informant himself has admitted that appellant was suffering from mental disorder since last four years. No motive has been brought on record as to why a mother would kill her son.
Since the counsel appearing for the appellant has sought for to give benefits of exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, we would like to examine the same, which reads as under: 6 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005 "84. Act of person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."
The benefit of this provision is available to a person who, at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her act or that what he/she was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of such mental condition at the time when the act was committed and the fact that he/she was of unsound mind earlier or later are relevant only to the extent that they, along with other evidence, may be circumstances in determining the mental condition of an accused on the day of incident.
It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her act or what he/she was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. It is also settled proposition of law that the crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 is the time when the offence is committed.
Admittedly the appellant was suffering from mental disorder which find support from FIR itself. It is evident from lower 7 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005 court record that just after her remand, she was admitted to Sadar Hospital where she was examined by a Medical Board. She was then referred to RINPAS for her further treatment. Accordingly, she was admitted to RINPAS for her treatment and remained as indoor patient for more than six months. The report received from RINPAS indicates that the appellant at the time of occurrence was suffering from schizophrenia. If all these facts were available on record, the Trial Court should have taken note of it. We do not find that the trial court has considered all these aspects while passing Judgment of conviction and sentence.
7. We have carefully gone through the case record and the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2007(2) East Cr. C. 420 (Jhr.) and we find that facts and circumstances appearing in the case at hand are squarely covered by aforesaid Judgment of this Court and, therefore, we intend to follow the principles laid down and feel inclined to give benefits of exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellant.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2005, passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004/ 82 of 2004 arising out of Kathikund P.S. Case No. 30/2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 519/2003 is hereby set aside. The appellant, named above, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and for that the convicting court/ successor court shall issue directions, if needed. It is observed that informant who is none else but husband of appellant, shall take all care of the appellant so that mental disease with which appellant had been suffering, should not relapse. If possible, the Officer Incharge of concerned Police Station shall also take care and keep 8 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005 mental state of appellant on track so that she may be provided proper treatment as and when required.
(D. N. Upadhyay,J)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J)
Dated the March 17, 2016
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
RC /A.F.R.