Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The accused has examined Dr. Nitin Abhiwant as a defence witness. According to Dr. Nitin, the accused was referred to him in the year 2011 with complaints of suspicious nature, delusions, aggressiveness and destructive mind. Upon examination of the patient he had found substance in the complaint. The patient was given 4 electric shocks as he was diagnosed as a case of paranoid schizophrenia. That in a case of paranoid schizophrenia patient suffers from delusion, fear psychosis and occasionally becomes violent. The accused was treated as an indoor patient from 2 nd August 2010 to 26th August 2010. The mother of the patient had told defence witness no.1 that the accused was ill since last 10 years and was initially being pmw 5 of 9 apeal-217.14.doc treated by a psychiatrist at Ahmednagar. The witness has opined that a patient of paranoid schizophrenia acts in a state of delusion and, therefore, does not understand the consequences of his act. He has further opined that schizophrenia is incurable but it can be controlled under medical observation. That if the treatment is discontinued the possibility of the patient becoming violent and aggressive cannot be ruled out.

12. D.W.1 has placed on record the medical case papers indicating the treatment given to the accused. The same are marked at Exh.70. In answer to the Court questions D.W.1 has stated that schizophrenia is of different degrees. A paranoid patient is afraid of other people. That a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia always apprehends danger by other people and therefore, he tries to go in seclusion. That, the patient becomes violent only when somebody tries to disturb him even if they happen to be his family members. If a particular person is selected for attack it may be because of delusion. The patient becomes occasionally and periodically insane. Electric shocks are given to such patients for clearing delusions in the mind. The accused was given electric shock till the month of August and thereafter, the treatment was discontinued. The medical case papers are on record. The last treatment was given on 26 th August 2010. It was recorded in the case papers as under :-

The prescriptions are also placed on record. All this would clearly establish that he was a case of paranoid schizophrenia.

13. We had called for a report from the jail where he is lodged. It appears from the record that when he appeared to be normal he was sent to Open Prison but thereafter, he was again transferred to Aurangabad Central Prison. The Jailor has filed a report on 21 st January 2021 that in the Prison also he is continuously talking to himself does not sleep at night, does not take his meals regularly, walks out of the barracks in the middle of night and therefore, he was referred to a psychiatrist in the jail. He was also referred to Civil Surgeon, Government Medical College Hospital at Aurangabad.

14. The Apex Court, in a similar case of Shrikant Anantrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra1, has held as follows:-

"In the present case, however, it is not only the aforesaid facts but it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the 1 (2002) 7 SCC 748 pmw 7 of 9 apeal-217.14.doc light of the evidence on record to prove that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The unsoundness of mind before and after 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. He was under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed is not ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained."