Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26 In her statement accused denied the prosecution evidence as false. She stated that she was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. That she was not even knowing any person by the name of Jagdish (deceased) or any person, Rajkumar, Narayan Singh or Premo. That she is patient of schizophrenia and she had suffered a lot for that as for this reason even her husband had divorced her and her two children are also living with her husband. That because of her false implication in the present case, her father and mother had suffered a great trauma as she is the only child of her old aged parents and for this reason even her father has expired now and her mother is also very sick and infirm. Two witnesses have been adduced in evidence in defence. 27 DW­1 Dr. Sushil Khetrapal, Proprietor of R.N. Khetrapal Memorial Nursing Home stated that he knew Poonam Mehta as being a patient and he State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 treated her for paranoid schizophrenia. That he treated Poonam Mehta from 10.03.2007 till 05.05.2007 and since she had not shown any signs of improvement, she was referred to RML Hospital for further management on 05.05.2007. He stated that paranoid schizophrenia is chronic brain disorder. That a patient of paranoid schizophrenia may become violent at one point of time and may be compose and calm immediately or after some time, and they don't remember about the event or the act the patient has committed during the period of said violent attack. In his cross­examination he stated that some times the violent behaviour of such patient completely disappear within few minutes, might be one or two minutes. He admitted that after the said treatment given to patient by him, patient never came to him again for any treatment. He admitted that original copy of prescriptions wherein medicines are prescribed are retained by the patient. That the document Mark A, A­1 and A­2 are prescriptions. He denied the suggestion that document Mark A, A­1 and A­2 are manipulated documents and that is why their original have not been produced in the Court. 28 The witness was further examined on application U/s 311 Cr. P.C. He stated that he had seen the original OPD card of R.N. Khetrapal Memorial Nursing Home dated 10.03.2007 and 14.06.2007 pertaining to Ms. Poonam Mehta and same bears his signatures at Point A under his seal on Ex. DW1/X and DW1/Y. He admitted that the patient of paranoid schizophrenia have their own perception and they cannot distinguish between right and wrong and in that perception and hallucinations they can commit suicidal as well as homicidal act. He agree with the observations laid down in the clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines made by World Health Organization, Geneva, 1992 in State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 ICD­10 (Classification of Mental & Behaviour Disorder). The same are Ex. DW1/Z. In his cross­examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State he stated that patient had visited 2/3 times in the OPD. He admitted that his opinion as stated above regarding the patient of paranoid schizophrenia is general. That during his treatment, the patient did not improve, therefore, he referred her to another Hospital. That he had given the above opinion because the patient could not give answers and also from her behaviour further she could not even identify him when visited second time in the OPD.

31 Accused has adduced two defence witnesses namely Dr. Susheel State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 Khetrapal and Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk, RML Hospital to prove that she is a patient of paranoid schizophrenia. That despite treatment from Dr. Susheel Khetrapal Proprietor of R.N. Khetrapal Memorial Nursing Home between 10.03.2007 to 05.05.2007 she had not shown any signs of improvement and therefore, was referred to RML Hospital for further management. It has been emphasised upon by Ld. Defence Counsel that paranoid schizophrenia is chronic brain disorder and that the patient becomes violent at one point of time and may be composed and calm immediately thereafter. That the patient does not remember anything after the violent attack. Documents Mark A, A­1 and A­2, which are the prescriptions have been placed on record to show that she was under treatment with DW­1 Dr. Susheel Khetrapal. While DW­2 Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk of RML Hospital placed on record photocopy of OPD Card to show that the accused had attended two sittings at the RML Hospital being patient of paranoid schizophrenia. Ld. Counsel has emphasised that accused being a patient of paranoid schizophrenia cannot distinguish between right and wrong and has her own perception and hallucinations and can become suicidal or homicidal. That the case of the accused falls within the category of Section 84 IPC. Section 84 IPC reads as under:­ "Act of a person of unsound mind.­­Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law" and that accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground itself.