Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) In the Appeal filed by the Appellant being Crl.A. No.8 of 2012, Mr. N. Rai, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, as Legal Aid Counsel, did not question the findings on the merits of the case but, Narad Pariyar @ Navin vs. State of Sikkim restricted himself only to the quantum of the sentence on the plea of mental illness of the Appellant as being the cause for commission of the offence.

(iii) It was the case of the Appellant that he had been led to commit the offence due to his mental disorder on account of him suffering from paranoid schizophrenia but the Psychiatrist who had treated the Appellant during the trial and whose evidence was crucial for the Appellant, was not examined causing him grave prejudice in being deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining him. It is also of relevance to note that during the proceedings of the Appeal before a Bench of this Court of which one of us (Wangdi, J.) was a part, the prosecution was directed to ascertain as to whether the Appellant was suffering from mental illness and whether he was under continued medication. On receipt of the report of the Board of Medical Specialist and after considering the other evidence, it was felt that it would be in the interest of justice if the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for examination of the Psychiatrist who had treated the Appellant. On the consent of the parties by order dated 26-04-2013 the impugned judgment was set aside and the Narad Pariyar @ Navin vs. State of Sikkim case remanded to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, for the limited purpose of examination of the Psychiatrist with a direction to decide the case afresh based upon the additional evidence and the evidence already on record.

(ix) Relying upon the case of the Bombay High Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Govind Mhatarba Shinde reported in 2010 CRI.L.J. 3586, it was submitted that "it is accepted principle of Criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts"

and that "the accused may raise a plea of exception either by pleading the same specifically or by relying on the probabilities and the circumstances obtaining in the case".

(x) By referring to Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 2002 SC 3399 and the decision of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Debeswar Bhuyan vs. State of Assam : 2012 CRI.L.J. Narad Pariyar @ Navin vs. State of Sikkim 274, it was submitted that, in a case like present one, when the Appellant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which is proved by the evidence of Dr. C. L. Pradhan, P.W.19, who in turn is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 3, 4, 10, 11 and 18, there can be no manner of doubt that the Appellant has been able to discharge the burden of preponderance of probability and, therefore, protected under Section 84 IPC and the first exception to Section 300 IPC.