Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) The accused remained at the scene of offence and started weeping along with his sister that his mother died. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 testified to this fact.

(d) P.Ws. 2 and 3 stated before the investigating officers and also before the Magistrate who recorded the statements under S. 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused was under the influence of evil spirits and behaving disorderly since two years before the date of offence. Before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, P.W. 2 stated that the deceased was behaving as if someone practised black magic on him and that the accused was shown to some "magicians" but that there was no relief. P.W. 3. also stated that since two years the accused was under the influence of witchcraft and behaving disorderly. Although the accused got treatment at Yellareddy and other places, it was in vain.

4. The learned counsel for the convicted accused and the learned Public Prosecutor referred to a number of cases supporting their respective pleas. We shall briefly refer to them a little later.

5. In order to clear the ground, we may straightway mention that the learned Public Prosecutor did not fairly dispute the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the convicted accused. It is admitted that the prosecution could not find any motive. It is also admitted that the accused did not try to abscond or conceal himself or the weapon with which he committed the act of killing the deceased and the accused also remained at the scene of offence weeping along with his sister and other relations until the police patel arrived. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, points out that the alleged anterior history of the accused being under black magic should be disregarded for two reasons. It is claimed that the statements made by P.Ws. 2 and 3 before the investigating officers and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy pointing out to the accused undergoing treatment for black magic and witchcraft in the past and the accused demonstrating disorderly behaviour at times were denied in cross-examination during the course of trial. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that this Court should not take into consideration the statements made by P.Ws. 2 and 3. We must straightway reject this contention. Exs. D-1 to D-6 undoubtedly supporting the plea that P.Ws. 2 and 3 stated before the investigating authorities and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy that the accused was under the influence of witchcraft for about two years and behaving disorderly. It was stated before the Judicial First Class Magistrate that the accused was behaving disorderly on account of magic practised by somebody. It also showed that the accused was under treatment at Yellareddy and other places, but without any result. It is true, as the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out, that P.Ws. 2 and 3 in cross-examination denied having made the above statements before the investigating authorities and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy. On the facts of the case, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the convicted accused that the denial of P.Ws. 2 and 3 in cross-examination of their having made the above statements before the investigating authorities and the Magistrate, Kamareddy was due to pressure brought upon them by the prosecution, so that no antecedent history of the accused being under the spell of black magic could come up for consideration. It is true, no evidence has been let in by the accused to support that prior to the commission of the offence he was suffering from mental disorders periodically, that he was under the treatment and that the treatment did not yield results. We do not, however, see any grounds to disbelieve the statements made by P.Ws. 2 and 3, the sister and brother-in-law of the accused and the daughter and the son-in-law of the deceased respectively to the effect that the accused was suffering from a kind of mental disorder for which he received treatment without result. On these facts, we are unable to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the convicted accused that there was evidence indicating that prior to the commission of the alleged offence by the accused he was suffering from mental disorders periodically.

7. We had occasion to consider in some detail the question regarding the application of S. 84 I.P.C. in a recent case where the plea of insanity was raised, vide our judgment in Harold Correa v. State of A.P. Crl. Appeal No. 123 of 1983, dt. 7-3-1985. While dealing with the matter we have referred in that case to the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Unniri Kanan v. State , the Delhi High Court in Mst. Shanti Devi v. State , the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Dharmadas v. State of A.P. (1985) 1 Andh LT 16 and the Karnataka High Court in Sanna Eranna v. State of Karnataka 1983 Cri LJ 619. We do not consider it necessary to refer to these cases once again. We would, however, reiterate that the decisions in the above cases do support the proposition that in a case where the conduct of the accused in committing an act demonstrates an abnormality, the prosecution should place before the Court some evidence to indicate that the accused was in a proper state of mind at the time when he committed the alleged offence. Even if no evidence is forthcoming regarding the conduct and behaviour of the accused preceding, attending and following the commission of the offence, the Court can look into the acts which serve to ascertain whether they provide intrinsically the chief evidence of insanity. In the present case, surely the conduct and behaviour of the accused attending the commission of the offence was extraordinary. Without any motive or provocation whatsoever, he cut his mother's neck with an axe. Evidence led by the prosecution indicated that the accused was on very cordial terms with his mother and there were no quarrels or disputes. After cutting his mother's neck the accused put down the axe, sat at the scene of offence and started weeping for his deceased-mother along with his sister and other relations. The accused did not make any attempt to flee from the scene of offence or conceal himself or conceal the weapon. The prosecution should have considered this extraordinary behaviour on the part of the accused as meriting an investigation into the state of the accused's mind at the time when he committed the alleged offence. The obligation of the prosecution to investigate into this matter was all the greater in view of the statements made by P.Ws. 2 and 3, the sister and brother-in-law of the accused, that for the past two years the accused was under the influence of some black magic and underwent treatment without result. We are constrained to observe that the investigating authorities, instead of acting fairly and sending the accused to an expert for medical evidence regarding his state of mind, endeavoured to give a lie to the statements made by P.Ws. 2 and 3 regarding the accused's previous insanity, by requiring these witnesses to retract from their statements made earlier before the investigating authorities and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy. In a case where the accused was taken into custody immediately after the commission of the offence, there is no way the accused can establish his state of mind. Fairness in investigation requires that the investigating officials should probe into this aspect and subject the accused to medical examination at least to ensure that the accused was in fact a person of ordinary state of mind. If that is done, it necessarily rules out the possibility of the accused having committed the acts of violence attributed to him on account of any mental disease or lunacy. The failure to subject the accused to such medical examination immediately and to place before the court all the evidence that could be available may have a serious consequence on the prosecution case when such plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial. The failure on the part of the prosecution to collect the evidence and place before the Court, on the mental aspect of the accused, creates a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution and raises a doubt whether the act or acts of violence were committed with the requisite intention of committing a particular offence. Consequently, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to accused. To the same effect is the view expressed by the Karnataka High Court in Sanna Eranna v. State of Karnataka (1983 Cri LJ 619) (supra).

10. We have earlier pointed out that there was evidence to show that the accused in the present case was under the influence of black magic and was behaving in a disorderly manner indicating unsound mind. The statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 before the Investigating Officers and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, support this aspect of mental disorder suffered by the accused. He was treated for the mental disorder but without success. The denial by P.Ws. 2 and 3, in their evidence, of the statements before the Investigating Officers and the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Kamareddy, is, in our opinion, not voluntary but inspired. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3 clearly pointed out that the relations between the accused and the deceased were absolutely cordial. There was total absence of motive. The behaviour of the accused in remaining at the scene of offence without concealing himself and in weeping for the deceased mother along with the relations, is a pointer to the state of mind of the accused at the time of committing the offence. The accused was taken into custody immediately and the Investigating Officials did not subject him to medical examination to ascertain his state of mind. Being in the custody of the police, the accused had no opportunity to establish his state of mind immediately after the commission of the offence.