Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On completion of the investigation and receipt of the post mortem reports (Exts. PW-12/A and PW-12/B), medico legal certificate of the accused (Ext. PW-12/D) and report of the Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. PX), PW-21 prepared the chargesheet and sent the accused for trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

5. In order to bring home the accusations against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. pleaded that he has not committed the murder of his wife and child and claimed innocence. In answer to question No. 20 he stated that he wanted to die. The accused examined Dr. Virendra Mohan a private practitioner in his defence to prove that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Q. 11. There is in evidence that you had been present at your house on the night intervening 26-10-2000 and 27-10-2000. In the morning on 27-10-2000 your mother Smt. Ochhi Devi looked for you but you were nowhere to be found. What have you to say about it?

Ans. It is correct.

17. Thus, the evidence of the relative witnesses and other witnesses of the village noticed hereinabove would prove conclusively that the accused made extra judicial confession to them without any undue influence, coercion or presser. The accused made disclosure statement (Ext. PW-2/B) in the presence of PW-2 Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and one Gauri Prasad, Member of the Gram Panchayat that he could get rope recovered used by him in the commission of the crime. The accused took PW-2 and Gauri Prasad to the Verandah of his house and pursuant to the disclosure statement he produced rope (Ext. P-l) from the hole of the wall of the Verandah. Dr. Rawat opined that ligature marks found on the neck of deceased Smt. Sewa Dassi and deceased Naresh Kumar could be caused by rope (Ext. P-l) which was sent to him by the Investigating Officer for giving the definite opinion to that extent. Extra-judicial confession, conduct of the accused and the recovery of the rope (Ext. P-1) in our view are the circumstances sufficient to connect the accused for the commission of the crime. In Balu Ram v. State of Rajasthan their Lordships held in the facts and circumstances of that case that extra-judicial confession made by the accused to his uncle and other villagers that he had quarrel with the deceased, had given a lathi blow on head of the deceased and locked him in a room. F. I. R. lodged by the uncle of the deceased, the injuries caused by lathi blow on head and other parts of the body have been spectfically mentioned, the nature of the injuries stated to have been disclosed in confession, corroborated by medical evidence are sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence on the basis of extra judicial confession. The learned Counsel for the accused in support of the plea of insanity of the accused placed reliance on the testimony of DW-1 Dr. Virendra Mohan to contend that the accused was under medical treatment of Dr. Virendra Mohan as he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he was not in a position to know or realize the nature of the acts which he was committing and as such the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C. Before we deal with the evidence of Dr. Virendra Mohan, we feel it expedient to refer to the relevant provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with "General Exceptions" Section 84, I.P.C. provides as under:

27. Under the law, the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the, accused is the time when the offence was committed. The question whether the accused was in such state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 Indian Penal Code, can only be established and determined from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. In the light of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid judgments, we have examined the evidence of Dr. Virendera Mohan to consider the plea of insanity pleaded by the accused by putting suggestion to the prosecution witnesses. The accused has not pleaded the defence of exceptions under Section 84, I.P.C. in the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The prosecution witnesses have denied the suggestion of the defence that on 27-10-2000 when the accused was brought to his house by the villagers he was incapable of understanding anything. The suggestion of the defence to some of the prosecution witnesses that the wife of the accused and his son were murdered by Gorkha labourer who was engaged by Smt. Sewa Dassi when she failed to pay the wages of that Gorkha was emphatically denied by them. The accused had not taken such plea in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Dr. Virendra Mohan passed MBBS examination from Rohatak College in 1969 and thereafter qualified M.D. in Psychiatry from P.G.I. Chandigarh in 1973. He is running a private hospital for mentally ill persons under the name and style of Dr. Virendra Mohan Hospital at Dharampur in District Solan. He examined the accused for the first time on 2-7-1995 and found him suffering from paranoid schizophrenia of two months duration. The evidence of Dr. Virendera Mohan shows that the accused was taking alcohol, hemp and smoke. He sent consignment of drugs to the accused through V.P.P. on 17-12-1999 as the accused was required to take drugs regularly but he was not taking the drugs. It has come in the cross-examination of the doctor conducted by learned Public Prosecutor that if the person is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and if the ailment persists for two years, such person was required medical treatment and drugs for whole of his life. The accused was examined second time by Dr. Virendra Mohan on 13-6-1999. According to the version of Dr. Virendra Mohan, the accused would be relieved of symptoms of ailment within two months after the drugs administered to him and the attack of paranoid schizophrenia would last for several days may be up to one month. Dr. Virendra Mohan has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not admit the accused in the hospital since he knew that the accused would get improved if he consumed the drugs prescribed by him. He found the accused somewhat normal on 13-6-1999 when the accused was brought to the hospital. Dr. Virendra Mohan has categorically stated that in May, 2000 when he appeared as DW-1 in the Court, the accused was found normal. On scrutiny of the evidence of Dr. Virendra Mohan, the accused was of normal mind during his trial by the learned trial Court. On 13-6-1999 when the accused was medically examined by Dr. Virendra Mohan, he was found some what normal and the accused was given drugs as prescribed by Dr. Virendra Mohan. P.W.-12 Dr. Ganga Rawat in his cross-examination has stated that when he examined the accused on 28-10-2000 at 2 p.m. he found the accused answering the questions intelligently therefore, he concluded that the accused was not suffering from mental ailment at the time of medical examination. It is his evidence that he has carried out the house job for six months in Psychiatric wing of I.G.M. C. Shimla apart from professional course. The suggestion of the defence that the accused was suffering from mental ailment is categorically denied by him. Therefore no benefit can be availed by the accused from the evidence of Dr. Virendra Mohan to prove that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence and as such, incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. In the absence of any material to discharge that burden, we are satisfied that the accused was sane and understood the implications of the act done by him and in no case was having unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84, I.P.C. at the relevant time. The prosecution has proved the circumstances which lead to the only inference of the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime based upon reliable, trustworthy and cogent evidence and the incriminating circumstances discussed hereinabove in the earlier part of the judgment. We do not find any ground to draw any other inference in the present case. The accused stands rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. There is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.