Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. In our considered view the general law is that the plea of insanity or that of temporary insanity is a special plea that is to be taken by the defence and the onus to prove that the appellant at the relevant time was suffering from insanity per se or even of temporary insanity is on the appellant. The learned trial judge did not think it his duty to cause the appellant to be examined by any psychiatrist or by an expert on mental diseases for clinching the issue as to whether the appellant was really suffering from any insanity. We do not really find out any positive animus on the part of the appellant to kill Pratima unnecessarily but then the fact remains that Pratima was done to death in a brutal manner. We were, of the further view, since the prosecution evidence itself indicated that the appellant was temporarily insane for a time of about 1 month prior to the date of the incident and almost all the witnesses spoke about his mental infirmity at the relevant time, the ends of justice required that the appellant should be examined by a doctor who is an expert in mental diseases. We forwarded the records to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol so that there can be a proper examination of the accused-appellant by a psychiatrist and/or .an expert in mental diseases with a direction that after the said report the records would be returned back to us by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol. The appellant was examined by the Head of the department, Psychiatric Unit, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital, Burdwan on 9.6.90 and on 11.6.90 and by a report dt. 18.6.90 it was submitted before us that the appellant is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The details of the said findings are in his report. We accept the said report which reveals that on the date of the examination he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. It was found by the Head of the Department, Psychiatric Unit of the Burdwan Medical College and Hospital that he was suffering from a delusion and he had auditory hallucination thinking that people were conspiring against him. He was of a suspicious and irritable mood but he becomes cheerful when religious matters are discussed. Because of the impact of leprosy on him, the doctor found deformity of the feet and the toes specially at the lower extrimities. Reading the entire evidence with the context of the finding by the doctor who is a specialist, we feel no hesitation to find that the appellant must have killed his wife by reason of unsoundness of mind when he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing something either wrong or contrary to law.

7. If the material placed before the court raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court whether the accused had the mens rea required for the offence, accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. In such an event, prosecution must be taken to have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial point of time at which un-soundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime was actually committed. For this purpose, the state of his mind, both before and after the commission of the act, is also relevant. The court has to pay due regard to the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the act. That was however a case where the accused was charged for murder of his wife and it was proved that he was suffering from mental illness which developed paranoid psychosis and later into paranoid schizophrenia, which if not properly treated, would persist and even aggravate. And from the fact that he had disappeared from the village for about two years and had returned only two months prior to the occurrence, it could be said that at the time of the occurrence the accused was a person of unsound mind and by reason of such disease he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act, and accordingly he was acquitted. It was however held in this case that even though the appellant was found not guilty of charge of murder on the ground of unsoundness of his mind, he must be detained under Section 335 in mental hospital in accordance with Rules framed by State of Kerala.

10. Taking the entire gamut of case laws on the point in the background of the medical opinion that the appellant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which is a form of Paranoid psychosis and relying on the prosecution evidence itself about the general state of mind of the appellant preceding the incident and immediately after the commission of the offence, we are of the view that the plea of insanity is available to the appellant and he is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter we allow the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence ; but then, since we are not convinced that the appellant at the present moment is in a fit state of mind to judge his own welfare or to distinguish between right and wrong and take care of himself without medical aid and the evidence is that he was, immediately preceding the incident, suffering from leprosy, that he should be detained in safe custody in an appropriate hospital or a place of custody of non-criminal lunatics as may be provided to him by our State Government under the direct supervision of the Director of Prisons and he should not be released from safe custody unless and until further medical opinion is obtained with regard to his state of mind that he can take care of himself and he has been cured of his mental disease and infirmity.