Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paranoid schizophrenia in Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 17 October, 2006Matching Fragments
6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials made appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The accused denied each and every incriminating circumstances and also denied his complicity in the crime. The accused has chosen to examine himself as D.W.3 and also examined D.Ws.1 and 2.
7. D.W.1 is the Doctor attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and he has stated that he has examined the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001. It is further stated that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia". The discharge certificate, Ex.D.1 was marked through the Doctor, D.W.1.
10. The only contention put forward by Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the accused is suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" and as such he is entitled to the benefit to Exception under Section 84 I.P.C. In support of the plea of insanity of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following materials :
(1)The evidence of D.W.1, the Doctor, attached to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who has treated the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001 and also stated that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" . (2)Ex.D.2, the termination order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the accused is medically unfit for service in CRPF due to "Paranoid Schizophrenia". (3)P.W.2, granddaughter of the deceased, stated that the wife of the accused obtained divorce on the ground that the accused was mentally ill.
Therefore, in view of the above said principle laid down by the Apex Court, the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused regarding the unsoundness of mind is the time when the offence was committed.
23. In the first decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748, the accused was suffering from "Paranoid schizophrenia". In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied the following circumstances for holding that the accused is entitled for the protection under Section 84 of I.P.C. :
25. But in this instant case, there is no such circumstances available on record as relied by the Apex Court and this Court in the decisions cited supra indicating the state of mind of the accused viz., unsoundness of mind at the crucial time of commission of the offence. Therefore, those two decisions were not applicable to the facts of this case.
26. In the case on hand, the defence placed reliance on the following circumstances :
(1)The evidence of D.W.1, the Doctor, attached to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who has treated the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001 and also stated that the accused was suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" . (2)Ex.D.2, the termination order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the accused is medically unfit for service in CRPF due to "Paranoid Schizophrenia". (3)P.W.2, granddaughter of the deceased, stated that the wife of the accused obtained divorce on the ground that the accused was mentally ill.