Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6] The learned Advocate also pointed out that even during the course of trial, he had to be referred to the mental hospital at Yerwada and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had to follow the procedure prescribed under Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C. His behaviour in the jail was abnormal. The jailer had sought a direction from the C.J.M.by his letter (Exh.38) to issue a reception order under the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after satisfying himself on the basis of the papers, passed an order and referred the appellant to the Mental Hospital, Yerwada. The learned Advocate also pointed out that the Committee from the Mental Hospital, Yerwada submitted its report (Exh.45) and it is only after he was certified to be of sound mind and fit for trial, that the trial could be proceeded. Thereafter, a report of the Lecturer from the Psychology Department of B.J.Medical College,Pune (Exh.49) was obtained in respect of symptomatic assessment of the appellant and it was reported that the appellant was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. Thereafter a Committee consisting of Medical Superintendent, Resident Medical Officer and Head of the Department of Psychiatric, Government Medical College,Latur certified the appellant to be fit for trial vide a letter (Exh.50/1) and it is only thereafter that the trial could be proceeded.

7] Thus in substance, according to the learned Advocate for cria257-13 the appellant, there is ample evidence to prove that the appellant has been suffering from Schizophrenia Paranoid type mental disorder since before the incident. There is evidence to show that even during the course of incident he must have been suffering from that disorder and therefore, the appellant must be given benefit of doubt about having committed the murder. He was incapable of understanding the consequence of his act. He has discharged the burden as is required under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.

8] The learned Advocate referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrikant Anand Bhosale V/s State of Maharashtra; 2002 Cr.L.J. 4356 and submitted that in the similar set of facts where the accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and had killed his wife in day light making no attempt to hide or run away and the motive attributed was weak and there was evidence to show that the accused was suffering from mental unsoundness preceding the occurrence and following the occurrence, a reasonable inference is discernible that he was under delusion at the relevant time and the accused was held to be entitled to get benefit of Section 84 of the IPC.

20] It is a matter of record that even during the course of trial, as is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant, the appellant was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and had to be treated and his mental disorder was assessed by a Lecturer from the Psychiatric Department of B.J.Medical College, Pune. It is only after he was certified to be fit for trial by the Committee that the trial could be proceeded.

21] All these circumstances, that the appellant has been suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia since atleast 3 months prior to the incident and his continuing to suffer from the same disorder even subsequent to the incident and his behaviour immediately after occurrence of the incident referred to hereinabove, which is indeed abnormal, clearly shows that there are preponderance of probabilities to indicate that his mental faculties at the time of incident were impaired by the psychological disorder he has been suffering from.