Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.2.On 12.09.2014, at about 01.20 p.m., when the deceased Kameswaran had gone to PW2's house, there was a small wordy quarrel between the deceased Kameswaran and his Aunt/appellant, who was present there. The appellant being a mentally deranged person and affected with paranoid schizophrenia, bolted the house from inside, doused kerosene on Kameswaran and set him on fire. After seeing the smoke emanating from the house, the neighbours had informed Rajammal/PW2 about the same. PW2 along with others had broke open the door and went to find the deceased Kameswaran in a charred condition on the floor, while the appellant was sitting motionless beside him. When PW2 had informed her daughter/PW1, the mother of Kameswaren about the incident, PW1 had went there and took his son Kamaeswaran to the hospital in an ambulance driven by PW7.

4.7.He further submitted that the medical records of the appellant from the date of remand, until recently, confirms that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Hence, the appellant ought to have been acquitted from the case as as General Exception under Chapter IV. As per Section 84 IPC, nothing is an offence which is committed by a person of unsound mind.

4.8.The learned counsel for the appellant had produced the Court communications regarding medical treatment and health condition of the appellant and the communication sent to the Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Trichy, Superintendent of Special Prison (Women), Trichy, letter from the Doctors attached to the Government Hospital, Trichy, Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai, Medical advice from the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and from the Institute of Medical Health, Kilpauk, Chennai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis confirming the mental state of the appellant. These medical reports of the Doctors, confirm the appellant to have had mental disorder during the under trial period, as well as after her conviction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4.10.In view of the above, the appellant was affected with paranoid schizophrenia prior to the occurrence, during the occurrence and after the occurrence which is substantiated from the evidences of PW1, PW2, PW15 and the medical reports of the Doctors attached to the Prison, Trichy Medical College Hospital and Institute of Medical Health, Kilpauk, Chennai.

4.11.He further submitted that the appellant has been disowned by her family and from 12.09.2014, no members of her family have visited the appellant and no one had taken any steps to obtain bail or seek for any leave after the judgment. The appellant is in confinement with her mental illness and hence, she is entitled to be acquitted under Section 84 of IPC and can be referred to the hospital for continuation of her treatment and for her well being. During trial, she was assisted by a Legal Aid Counsel. The appeal was also conducted by the counsel as pro bono.

5.2.He further submitted that the appellant is confined in prison from the date of remand without anybody's aid or help. Further, from the day of remand, the appellant behaviour was violent where she spent sleepless nights, crying and shouting. The appellant was diagnosed to be of a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. She has been regularly taken to hospital for treatment. She had also developed neurological problem. He fairly submitted that the trial Court, finding the appellant to be a person with mental disorder, ought to have taken appropriate steps to have her examined medically and proceeded accordingly.