Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paranoid schizophrenia in The State Of Maharashtra vs Dhananjay Bhivadas Pore And Anr on 27 January, 2022Matching Fragments
(PER : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
1. The learned ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by judgment and order dated 29.05.2003, has acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). The State of Maharashtra is in appeal against the said judgment and order 1 of 34 Cri.Appeal.1061.03.doc acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2002. A notable feature in this case is the defence of insanity pleaded by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 84 IPC, which carves out an exception that an act will not be an offence if done by a person who, at the time of doing the same, 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. The Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and has succeeded in proving insanity within the meaning of Section 84 IPC at the time of commission of the act and hence deserved acquittal.
v. The Respondent No.1 has miserably failed to prove legal insanity to avail the exemption under Section 84 IPC; vi. The Respondent No. 1 has a strong motive which cannot be disregarded as has been done by the Trial Court; vii. The investigating officer did not subject the Respondent No. 1 to medical examination immediately and place that evidence before the Court.
11. PER CONTRA, Ms. Rui Danawala, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1, submits that on perusal of the evidence placed before the Court, the Respondent No. 1 has succeeded in 7 of 34 Cri.Appeal.1061.03.doc proving the fact that he was suffering from legal insanity at the time of commission of the offence by raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Trial Court, thereby qualifying the Respondent No. 1's case as an exception under the provisions of Section 84 IPC. She submits that the evidence of the eight defence witnesses as recorded by the Trial Court clearly established the fact that the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from legal insanity and goes to prove that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. She submits that:
viii. Dr. Sameer Vilas Gupte (D.W. 8), M.D. Psychiatry, practicing in Sangli, has also given evidence of having treated the Respondent No. 1 for his mental illnesses prior to the incident.
12. Ms. Danawala submits that during the pendency of the trial and immediately after recording the statement of Respondent No. 1 under Section 313 of the CrPC, and during the time the defence witnesses were being examined by the Trial Court, Respondent No. 1 was referred to Krupa Mayee Institute for Mental Health at Miraj, Sangli, and was treated at the said institute for paranoid schizophrenia. She submits that the facts and circumstances on record clearly suggest that the Respondent No. 1 was of unsound mind and, while killing Padmakar, had no mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of his act. Hence, after considering the evidence, she submits that Respondent No. 1 was rightly exonerated by the Trial Court by applying the provisions of Section 84 IPC. She has supported the judgment and order dated 29.05.2003 passed by the Trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
vi. The evidence of the four doctors clearly discloses that the Respondent No. 1 was under treatment for mental illness at least from the year 2000 onwards; and the incident took place on 22.07.2002;
vii. The evidence further discloses that the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from acute paranoid schizophrenia. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21 st Edition) at page no. 461, such paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to painful and disagreeable disturbances of general sensation, giving rise to hallucinations which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electric wireless telegraphy, or atomic energies. The patient usually retains his memory and orientations and does not show signs of 32 of 34 Cri.Appeal.1061.03.doc insanity until the conversation is directed to a particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When these delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and others;