Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.

Uncontrovertedly not the prosecution rather the defence is commanded or enjoined by law to prove by adduction of efficacious evidence carrying probative vigor, the factum of the accused while labouring under a severe mental disorder or his of being gripped with besides beset with a mental malady at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence, hence was constrained rt to be unaware of both the nature of the act or that what he was doing is wrong or contrary to law. The defence to discharge the burden as cast upon it, by law for succeeding in its espousal that the plea of mental insanity is available to the accused, has relied upon the deposition of DW.1 besides upon the deposition of DW.2. Dr. Virendera Mohan, who stepped into the witness box as DW.1. DW.1 had subjected the accused to medical examination on 18.8.1984, whereupon he concluded that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Though he has proceeded to depose that with the accused being beset with the aforesaid mental malady he is deprived of his cognitive faculties. Nonetheless, when his observations qua the factum of the accused being beset with paranoid schizophrenia stand recorded in Ext.D.1 on 18.8.1984, as also when he subjected the accused to examination on 4.12.1987, yet the examination if any by him of the mental condition of the accused in the years aforesaid may not be relevant to, on such assessment by him qua the mental condition of the accused in the years aforesaid, constrains this Court to conclude that the ill-fated occurrence of 24.3.1988 was carried into effect by the accused with his then too being beset with paranoid schizophrenia. More so when DW.1 in his cross .

examination has conceded to the factum of his having not subjected the accused to medical examination in March 1988, besides even if there is a revelation in his deposition of theirs being a possibility of reoccurrence of the aforesaid mental malady of in the accused on the score of his having been beset with the mental disorder aforesaid since 1984 would not facilitate an rt inference from this Court that he had yet not recovered from the mental malady aforesaid especially when there is no evidence forthcoming portraying the factum that since 4.12.1987 till March 1988, the accused had been receiving treatment for enabling him to recuperate from the mental malady aforesaid. For want of evidence unveiling the factum of the accused having received medical treatment subsequent to December, 1987 when DW.1 subjected the accused to medical examination and thereupon his having detected the accused to be beset with paranoid schizophrenia, the invincible conclusion ensuable therefrom is that, hence the accused had recovered from the aforesaid mental malady or that the incident on the ill-fated day was not a sequel to its reoccurrence or resprouting in the accused. Moreso, when there is no apposite evidence comprised in the factum of the accused having been subjected to medical examination at the time contemporaneous to the ill fated occurrence and such examination portraying factum of the accused being yet beset with paranoid schizophrenia.

18. Even the testimony of DW.2 is of no avail to the defence to espouse with any iota of success before this Court that .

at the apposite stage or on the ill-fated day the accused while being beset with paranoid schizophrenia deadened his cognitive faculties concomitantly sequelling the effect of, hence his being unaware of the nature of the act or that what he was doing was of wrong or contrary to law so as to bring his penal misdemeanors within the ambit or domain of the exception to penal liability rt constituted under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, especially when he did not, immediately prior to the ill-fated day or even at a time in close proximity to or in contemporanity to the ill-fated occurrence, subject the accused to medical examination for empowering him to unearth the factum of the accused being beset with paranoid schizophrenia. Rather as emanable from a reading his testimony, of his having subjected the accused to medical examination in the year 1991 which is a period three years subsequent to the ill-fated occurrence cannot bring the detection, if any by him of the accused then being beset with paranoid schizophrenia, to be either relatable to or being referable to the stage contemporaneous to the ill-fated occurrence, for then giving succor to the propagation by the defence that its detection then has a close nexus with the occurrence which rather took place as distantly as three years prior to its detection.

19. The medical evidence comprised in the testimonies of DW.1 and DW.2 for the reasons aforesaid when ridden with evidentiary emasculation to prove the factum of the accused at the relevant or the germane stage being gripped with paranoid .

schizophrenia, the evidence comprised in the deposition of PW.13, the officer under whom the accused was serving as an Accountant in the office of the Senior Accountant General, Shimla from 1986 to the earlier part of the year 1988 and its close of reading with incisive circumspection unveiling the factum of PW.13 having not during the tenure of the accused serving under rt him as an Accountant observed in him any noticeable mental abnormality rather his deposition on oath unveiling the factum that both the official behaviour as well as the work performed by the accused was normal, discounts the propagation by the defence that at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated occurrence the accused was gripped with paranoid schizophrenia. More so, when PW.13 has been categorical in deposing that the accused had worked as an Accountant under him in the office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General, Shimla from the end of the year 1986 to the earlier part of the year 1988, hence, when the aforesaid tenure of rendition of work by the accused under PW.13, is in close proximity to the ill-fated occurrence and when PW.13 has been categorical in his deposition qua the factum of their being no noticable symptoms of the accused while performing duties under him in portrayal of his being beset with any abnormality rather when he has bespoken with clarity the factum that the accused during the period of his rendering duties under him as an Accountant, was performing his official work satisfactorily besides his behaviour was normal and which deposition gains momentum especially when it has remained unshred during the course of his having been subjected to cross-