Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Heard Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for the State. The one and only contention projected by learned counsel for the appellant/ accused is that, at the time of alleged incident, the accused was suffering from 'paranoid schizophrenia' and hence, is entitled to the benefit of exception under Section 84 of the I.P.C.

8. Before considering the above issue, we have to first examine whether prosecution has established that accused caused homicidal death of the deceased. In fact, during the course of arguments, learned Advocate for the appellant has fairly conceded that, homicidal death of the deceased at the hands of accused is not disputed. Otherwise also, by examining Vanita Bhatambrekar (P.W.7), who is sister of the accused, prosecution has proved that on 19/6/1999, at night hours, accused, deceased Surekha, Vanita Bhatambrekar, her sister Anita Bhatambrekar had dinned together at their house at Latur. After watching the T.V. programme for some time, accused and Surekha went to their bedroom which was adjacent to the TV room. Sisters of the accused watched the TV up to 12.00 to 12.30 a.m. and thereafter they slept in the TV room itself. In the morning, Vanita (P.W.7) woke up at about 4.30 to 5.00 a.m. and she saw that accused and Anita were talking with each other in the passage of house. Accused told Vanita (P.W.7) that Surekha had become unconscious. Thereafter, by autorickshaw accused and his sisters took Surekha initially to private hospitals and at last, to Civil Hospital, Latur, where she was declared "dead". Police Station, Latur was informed and, therefore, A.S.I. Patil rushed to the Civil Hospital, Latur and prepared inquest panchanama (Exh.38). The dead body was referred for post mortem examination. Dr. Kalpana (P.W.2) performed autopsy examination of the dead body on 20/6/1999 in between 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. From the testimony of Dr. Kalpana (P.W.2), it emerges that, she found: (1) abrasion with contusion on right side of the neck, 3 cm. below mandibular margin, lateral to the thyroid cartilage of size 1 x 0.5 cm.; (2) subcutaneous haemorrhage underneath above injury, lateral to thyroid cartilage. She also noticed bleeding through the oral cavity. On internal examination, Dr. Kalpana (P.W.2) found that, all neck veins engorged with cynotic blood, trachea, larynx mucosa were congested and there was submucosal hamemorrhage in the larynx. The brain was congested and the veins were engorged. Dr. Kalpana (P.W.2) opined that the cause of death of deceased Surekha was asphyxia due to throttling.

19. "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 given 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 behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.) 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."

20. Though defence has heavily relied on evidence of Dr. Laxman Shende (D.W.1). After going through his evidence, it emerges that, the appellant was under his observation for the period from 26/6/1999 to 9/7/1999 at Civil Hospital, Latur. According to this Medical Officer, during that period, appellant was suffering from major depression with psychiatric features. However, from his cross-examination, it also emerges that, mere mental depression does not amount to abnormality and if an illegal act is committed by sane person, there is possibility of his affecting the mental balance. He has also admitted that, because of commission of such illegal act, the person may become guilty conscious and such person may talk low tone because of guilty mind. From the evidence of this witness, it emerges that, the appellant was examined by this Medical Officer on 29/9/1999 and that time also, the symptoms found at the time of admission of the patient in Civil Ward were noticed. However, the condition of appellant after six days from the date of occurrence is not sufficient to hold that, at the time of commission of the offence the appellant was under the fit of paranoid schizophrenia. Similarly, the evidence of Dr. Satish Maniyar (D.W.2) is of no help to the prosecution to bring the case within ambit of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, because this Medical Officer, who is not Psychiatrist, had only examined and observed the behaviour of appellant in the month of September 1998 i.e. much prior to the occurrence of the incident. This Medical Officer also opined regarding psychiatric depression of the appellant and it cannot be equated with paranoid schizophrenia. Similarly, the evidence of Dr. Ivan Nefto (D.W.3) relates with condition of the appellant in Mental Hospital, Yerwada on 3/7/1999 to 27/11/1999 when the accused was discharged. His diagnosis was also restricted with the ailment of appellant as major depression with psychiatric features. In his cross-examination, he has also made it clear that, he cannot tell about the mental condition of appellant prior to 31/7/1999. Even evidence of Dr. Liyakat Mujawar (D.W.4) is of no help to the defence to prove the mental condition of appellant at the relevant time of commission of the offence because he has also admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot tell about the mental condition of appellant at the time of commission of alleged crime. Thus, after careful examination of the evidence of all defence witnesses who are expert in medical science, it becomes clear that their evidence is not related with the mental condition of the appellant/ accused at the relevant time of the commission of the offence. Even these Medical Officers have not expressed any opinion regarding mental condition of the accused either preceding the commission of offence or immediately after commission of the offence. Therefore, evidence placed on record by defence is of no help to hold that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was incapable of understanding anything about his act due to the attack of paranoid schizophrenia.

depression and he attempted to commit suicide, inference cannot be drawn that he was the patient of paranoid schizophrenia. Thus, the past medical history of the accused does not show that he was the diagnosed patient of paranoid schizophrenia or at any time he became violent or he was dangerous for his family members.

23. As observed above, even after commission of the offence, the conduct of the accused was absolutely normal. He cannot take benefit of the factor that he did not try to run away. In view of law laid settled by Apex Court in Elavarasan Vs. State reported in (AIR 2011 SC 2816), conduct of accused of not fleeing from spot would not in itself show that person concerned was insane at the time of commission of offence.