Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. We have heard Sri Sampangi Ramaiah N.S., learned amicus curiae representing the appellant- accused and subsequently the learned counsel Sri. K.B.K. Swamy, so also the learned Additional SPP Sri Vijayakumar Majage appearing for the respondent-State.

5. The learned amicus curiae apart from the grounds urged in the appeal memo, by taking us through the evidence on record, submitted that the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution is not worth believable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court without considering the said fact has wrongly convicted the accused. He further submitted that if the circumstances under which the alleged incident has taken place, if cumulatively taken into consideration, it clearly goes to show that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which is a mental disease and because of the said disease the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of act and was not having any mental element to cause the death of the deceased, then under such circumstances the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused by extending the benefit under Section 84 of IPC. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the evidence of DW.1 is self- explanatory, which clearly goes to show that since 1995 the accused was under treatment and he has also taken the treatment in Kerala State and he was discharged from the hospital against the medical advice and after his discharge, within 90 days the alleged incident has taken place. Even immediately thereafter, again he has been admitted to NIMHANS Hospital for the treatment. All these cumulative circumstances clearly go to show that the accused was under a delusion at the time when the alleged incident has taken place and the said fact is proved by him. Under such circumstances the benefit of Section 84 of IPC ought to have been given to the accused by the trial Court. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarath reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 and in the case of Srikanth Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002)7 SCC 748. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and to acquit the accused.

"84. Act of a 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."

- 21 -

16. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the accused was suffering with paranoid schizophrenia which is a mental disease and when a person is under paranoid delusion he is not fully aware of his activities and its consequences. The cause of schizophrenia is still not known, but heredity plays a part. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast of majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage and subsequently it gradually develops into delusions of persecution. He further submitted that in this behalf, the evidence of DW.1-Dr.Suresh Badadmath examined by the accused substantiates his contention.

17. In order to prove his defence, the accused has got examined DW.1-Dr.Suresh Badadmath, working as Additional Professor of Psychiatric in

- 22 -

NIMHANS Hospital who has deposed that for the first time, the accused was got admitted in NIMHANS Hospital on 9.9.2009 and as against the medical advice, the family members of the accused got him discharged on 15.9.2009. On 15.6.2009 he was prescribed ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy) for three times. On 9.3.2010 again the family members of the accused got admitted him and he was in the hospital for treatment till 24.4.2010. Again on 11.7.2010 he was brought to the hospital and was discharged on 13.7.2010. DW.1 has further deposed that as per the order of the Court the accused was admitted on 19.11.2010 and discharged on 8.12.2010 and again the jail authorities got admitted him on 11.5.2011 and he was discharged on 19.5.2011. DW.1 has also produced the case sheet as per Ex.D1. He has further deposed that the accused has been treated in his hospital and he is having two types of mental disease namely, i) paranoid schizophrenia ii) alcohol

the said insanity and even immediately after the incident and subsequently thereafter he was also under the treatment. Even the evidence of DW.1 discloses the fact that the accused was discharged against the medical advice. It also indicates the fact that the mother of the accused was also suffering with the unsoundness of mind. In that light, the only point which has been made clear in this behalf is that the unsoundness of the accused before and after the incident is a relevant fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonably drawn that the appellant was under a delusion at the relevant time. Even the evidence produced indicates the fact that the accused was suffering with paranoid schizophrenia which is a mental disease. What is paranoid schizophrenia when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment is a question. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth