Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the accused never entered inside the the court room and no offence u/s.452 IPC is committed. The revision petitioner is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for the past 12 years, which was not considered by the courts below.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the occurrence was proved in the trial Court and there is no misreading of evidence. Both courts opined that the house trespass was proved and the other contention is unbelievable. All factors highlighted by the accused were considered by the trial Court. No contention was raised by the defence counsel in the trial Court with regard to unsoundness of mind during cross examination of the occurrence witnesses.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as he was undergoing paranoid schizophrenia, he is entitled to get the protection u/s.84 of IPC. In order to get protection u/s.84 of IPC, the accused has to prove that the offence is done by him and at the time of doing that offence, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and incapable of knowing the nature of act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The words 'who is that Magistrate granted maintenance to his wife' uttered by the revision petitioner disclose that he was in a good mental condition to remember the order against him. If he is aware about the findings against him, it is presumed that at the time of doing the above offence, his mind was capable of knowing the nature of the law against him. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the protection. No scrap of paper has been produced in the trial Court to prove that he was undergoing any treatment for schizophrenia. Even though DW1 deposed that he had treated him and Ext.D1 was produced in that trial Court, that itself is not sufficient to admit the defence contention with regard to schizophrenia. Such an opinion was not made by that doctor at the time of issuing Ext.D1. Apex Court in Sheralli Wall Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1972 SC 2443] held as follows: