Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ninethly it is evident from the record that during the course of trial the Ld. Predecessor of this Court observing the mental condition of the accused to be improper he was referred to the Medical Board and the Board has opined that he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia for which the accused was under treatment and it was only after the completion of his treatment that trial of the accused has now again commenced.

Tenthly I may observe that M' Nagthan Rule provides that there is a presumption of sanity and the burden of proof is on the person who claims insanity. Sanity is a rebuttable presumption and the burden of proof is on the party relying upon it. Whether a particular condition amounts to a decease of the mind within the rules, is not a medical but legal question to be decided in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation. There is a clear distinct between the internal and external factors affecting the mind of the accused which would depend largely upon the elements of voluntariness and awareness of the circumstances surrounding the action of the accused. In order to satisfy this requirement, the wrong committed must be a legal wrong and the accused be functionally unaware that his actions are legally wrong at the time of offence. A practical issue is whether the fact that an accused is labouring under a "mental disability" should be a necessary but not sufficient condition for negating responsibility i.e. whether the test should also require an incapacity to understand what is being done, to know that what one is doing is wrong, or to control an impulse to do something and so demonstrate a causal link between the disability and the potentially criminal acts and omissions. Therefore, applying the above Rules to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the accused was a patient of Paranoid Schizophrenia so much so that the trial had to be stopped till the time he was under treatment at IBHAS which was resumed after completion of his treatment. I may observe that medical insanity is different from legal insanity and the accused has failed to bring on record evidence to show that at the time of commission of the offence the accused was suffering from any legal insanity though the probability of his committing the offence while undergoing a phase of medical insanity cannot be ruled out.

It stands established from the medical record of the accused that he had been suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and was under

treatment at IBHAS during the period of trial and as per the MLC of the the injured the injuries so inflicted that is on left side of neck, left temporal region, lateral aspect of left arm and on left side of chest near axilla are all injuries on the vital organs caused with a sharp edged weapon but there is nothing on record to prove the intention and knowledge so attributed to the accused and hence, the case of the accused does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code. However, he is held guilty of the lesser offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code read with Section 452 Indian Penal Code for which the accused is accordingly convicted.

Applying the above Rules to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the convict was a patient of Paranoid Schizophrenia so much so that the trial had to be stopped till the time he was under treatment at IBHAS which was resumed after completion of his treatment. I may observe that medical insanity is different from legal insanity and the convict has failed to bring on record evidence to show that at the time of commission of the offence the convict was suffering from any legal insanity though the probability of his committing the offence while undergoing a phase of medical insanity cannot be ruled out. Therefore, under these circumstances any harsh view to the convict would be prejudicial not only to him but also to his family members.