Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant while referring the evidence on record argued that at the time of commission of crime the accused/appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind and he was not knowing the nature of act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned Counsel drawn the attention of this Court towards the certificate Ex. C-1 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sardar Patel Hospital, Bilaspur in response to the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which shows that the accused/appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind. He further submitted that even during the pendency of this appeal on the directions of the High Court of M.P. Jabalpur the accused/appellant was referred to Jabalpur for ascertaining his mental condition and vide letter dated 29-9-1999 the Medical Officer, Central Jail Hospital. Jabalpur informed the Court that the accused/appellant was sent for treatment to the Mental Hospital. Jabalpur, he was kept under observation and on 16-9-1999 Dr. P. K. Joseph of Mental Hospital. Jabalpur after examining the accused/appellant, declared him a patient of "Paranoid Schizophrenia." After referring these two medical certificates he also argued that it is evident from the prosecution evidence that the accused/appellant was suffering from mental illness insanity since last 12 years and even before the date of commission of crime, accused/appellant disappeared from the house for a period of 6 years and returned to the house only 2-3 months prior to the date of incident. He further submitted that it has come in the evidence that even many times the accused used to roam in the village in naked condition and he also used to assault the villagers. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is bad in law and erroneous.

13. As per letter of Medical Officer, Central Jail Hospital, Jabalpur dated 29-9-1999 the accused was examined by the doctor of Mental Hospital, Jabalpur and after examination the doctor diagnosed him as the patient of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia.' In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shrikant Anandrao Bhonsle v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 3399 : 2002 Cri LJ 4356 the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edition) observed that (para 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 develops into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but are afterwards changes 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 gives rise to hallucinations, which are attracted 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 prosecutory 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 money and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversations is directed to the particular type of delusions from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour he is often a source of danger to himself and to others.

(Emphasis supplied)

16. Now we shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence available on record to ascertain as to whether the accused on account of supervening circumstances by reason of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' at the time of commission of offence was not capable of understanding the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law and for that purpose whether the accused has been able to discharge the burden of proof as per provisions of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, as per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dahyabhai's case 1964 (2) Cri LJ 472.