Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SPP FOR THE APPELLANT - STATE

9. Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Addl. SPP contended that the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, is without any basis and liable to be set aside. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the fact that no medical records relating to earlier to the incident are produced to show that accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and also not produced the certified copies of the medical documents and only xerox copies are produced at the time of arguments to prove that the accused was suffering from mental disorder. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be sustained and the accused has to be convicted for the alleged offence. The learned Addl. SPP further contended that after the incident, the wife of the accused filed Matrimonial Case No.2771/2006 for divorce under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein the wife has taken a contention that the marriage was performed without her consent and the accused - husband was suffering from mental illness and the said Matrimonial Case came to be decreed on 4.3.2008. Against the said judgment and Decree of the Family Court, the accused filed MFA No.7683/2008 before this Court contending that he was very fit among other grounds. This clearly indicates that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused on the ground of mental illness or disorder.

10. The learned Addl. SPP further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not evaluated and appreciated the evidence of PW.5, injured eye witness who explained as to how the incident happened. The learned Sessions Judge has not evaluated the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, the material witnesses whose evidence corroborated with the evidence of PW.5. The learned Sessions Judge has also not evaluated the evidence of PW.6 (wife of PW.5) though she is an eye witness to the incident so also the evidence of PWs.7 and 8, the eye witnesses and relatives of the injured and the same has been ignored. The said evidence depicts that the accused had made an attempt to murder PW.5 with MO.1. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered. He would further contend that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the evidence of PWs.11 to 16, who being the official witnesses, have played vital role in conducting investigation and clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused involved in the attempt of murder of PW.5 as per the charge made against him. He would further contend that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to acquit the accused only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without any material on record that the accused was suffering from mental disorder before his marriage and accused has not discharged the initial burden that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SMT. KALPANA, LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE

23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court considering that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind, held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 84 of IPC and accordingly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him.

VII. CONSIDERATION

24. On careful re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it clearly depicts that the marriage between Bharathi and the accused took place on 1.11.2006 and the incident happened on the intervening night of 1/2.11.2006 at about 1-00 a.m. It is the case of the prosecution that on the 1st day of the marriage i.e., 1.11.2006, somebody sent a message to the mobile of the accused and therefore, the accused attacked PW.5 in the night. Admittedly, the mobile phones of the accused as well as the person, who sent the message to the accused, have not been seized and not produced any call details with regard to the conversation. It is further case of the prosecution that PWs.3, 4,6,7,8 and 9 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident occurred on the intervening night of 1/2.11.2006 at about 1.00 a.m. Admittedly, PWs.5 and 6 are relatives of the said witnesses. It is PW.5 who arranged the marriage between the accused and Smt. N.V. Bharathi (sister of PW.6 and sister-in-law of PW.5). The theory putforth by the prosecution that merely because he received some information on 1.11.2006, he attacked PW.5 on the same night at 1.00 a.m., is unimaginable. The record also depicts that it is PW.5 who persuaded the accused to marry N.V. Bharathi. Admittedly, the wife of the accused i.e., Bharathi has not been examined. It is the specific case of the accused that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a major mental disorder even prior to the marriage and knowing fully well, PWs.3 and 4 (father and mother of Bharathi) performed the marriage of their daughter with him.

"He is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

             -    Hallucination
             -    Delusion
             -    Thought disorder"

In the cross-examination, DW.1 has admitted that some other doctor has written the writings in Ex.D4.

26. It is also not in dispute that when the accused applied for bail in Criminal Misc. No.3768/2006, he contended in the bail petition that he is a psychiatric patient and he was not knowing the nature of the act what he was doing and he was under medication for his mental illness. It is also not in dispute that the wife of the accused filed the petition for divorce under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the marriage between her and the accused was performed without her consent by playing fraud and she further stated that the accused was suffering from mental disorder and ultimately Matrimonial Case filed for divorce came to be decreed and affirmed by this Court on 3.2.2009 in the MFA No.7683/2008 filed by the accused.