Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has contended that the appellant at the time of occurrence was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was mentally unsound at the time of occurrence as such he could not have been convicted of any offence and was entitled to the benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 of IPC. It is contended that the evidence on record shows that before the commencement of trial the appellant was got examined by various doctors by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 328 Cr.P.C. and was found to be a man of unsound mind and the learned M.M. also passed an order in this regard dated 24.02.90 and the trial had commenced only when he was declared mentally fit. The appellant also produced five witnesses in defence to substantiate his stand that he was mentally unsound and the doctors opined that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Learned amicus curiae has also referred to the evidence of Sohan Lal (PW-1) and Sarita (PW-2) to substantiate that the appellant at the time of occurrence was a man of unsound mind and as such was entitled for the benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 of IPC.

8. The learned counsel for the State has contended that burden of proof that the appellant was of unsound mind and as a result thereof he was incapable of knowing the consequence of his act was on the defence. It is contended that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception under Section 84 of IPC was upon the defence and the defence has failed to discharge the said burden. It is contended that nothing has been placed on record to show that prior to the occurrence the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as is alleged. It is contended that for the first time, learned M.M. has been informed of mental unsoundness of appellant after about 4 months of occurrence and after about one month of filing of report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant. Prior to that no such stand has been taken. It is further contended that the conduct of the appellant after commission of the crime i.e., of having locked the room where incident had occurred and of concealing the weapon of offence thapi behind the door and thereafter going to the house of his brother Sohan Lal demolishes the stand of defence that appellant was a man of unsound mind at the time of occurrence. It is contended that no abnormal behavior of appellant was noticed at the time of his arrest. Further, nothing about the alleged delusion was stated during the investigation. None of his family members had stated about the delusion in the evidence during the trial. It is contended that neither the lawyer of appellant nor his relatives i.e., brother and sister took the stand of insanity at initial stages. It is contended that even if it is held that after the incident he has been found to be a patient of paranoid schizophrenia the same cannot relate back to the date of the incident. It is contended that no evidence was produced in this regard by the defence nor any treatment papers had been produced concerning the appellant prior to the occurrence. Even the application filed before the Magistrate does not give any particulars as to when the alleged ailment started. It is contended that Ld Addl Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant and passed the order on sentence and no interference of this court is required.

In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra; (2002) 7 SCC 748, it is held that burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the provision of Section 84 IPC is on the accused. What is paranoid schizophrenia has also been discussed in the said judgment. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-

"10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment? Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but afterwards change into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from persecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his memory and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behavior, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.)
11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting the behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself and to others."

12. The main question for consideration is whether at the time of commission of offence appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as is alleged.

13. The date of occurrence is night intervening 23/24.02.1989. The FIR Ex. PW-3/A is registered on 24.02.1989 on the statement Ex. PW-1/A of Sohan Lal PW-1, brother of accused. Nothing is stated therein about the mental condition of appellant. The statement of sister Sarita (PW- 2), who is an educated lady and at the relevant time was a Government employee, was also recorded at the time of investigation. She has also not stated in this regard. It is not their stand that they had stated about the mental condition of the accused at the time of investigation and police did not record their statement in this regard. The accused was arrested on 24.02.1989. After his arrest, he was produced before the learned M.M. It is not the stand of the defence that in the remand proceedings before learned MM wherein accused was produced, such a stand was taken. The charge sheet was filed against the appellant before learned M.M. on 23.05.1989. The copies had been supplied to the appellant on that day. On 07.06.1989 an application is moved by his brother (PW-1) and sister (PW-2) through counsel wherein prayer was made for engaging counsel for the appellant. Only on 22.06.1989, an application is moved by the advocate of the accused on his behalf under Section 328 Cr.P.C. wherein it is stated that appellant is suffering from mental and physical infirmities and due to the unsound state of mind he was unable to understand the proceedings. He has also lost hearing and speaking powers. Therefore, request was made for calling for the medical reports from the hospital. On the said date, the application was also moved for providing „B‟ class facilities to the appellant in Jail being a graduate. In both these applications, it is not stated that at the time of commission of offence or prior to that appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia/unsoundness of mind as is alleged.