Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the trial court grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record, causing serious miscarriage of justice. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence, which evidence would in no way connect the accused with the crime. The appellant/accused was mentally unsound before and after the commission of the crime. The unsoundness continued at the stage of committal as well as during trial, due to which he was admitted to the Mental Health Centre several times. Therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of the exception contained in Section 84 IPC, which aspect has not been considered in the proper or correct perspective by the trial court. The evidence on record clearly shows that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia from March 1997 onwards and that he was on medication. As these facts have not been properly appreciated by the trial court, the findings entered are perverse and incorrect and hence liable to be set aside, contends the accused.

"Accused is present. MC report received. Fit to stand trial now. Heard on Framing charge. As he is fit to stand heard and charge framed against the accused. U/s.302 of IPC Accused pleaded not guilty after the charge was read over and explained in vernacular. Call on Remitted back to 07.09.2019."

Thus, the trial in the case commenced.

32. We also refer to the testimony of DW1 to DW4 examined on behalf of the accused. DW1, Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, stated that on 25/05/2015 she had examined Benny who had a history of psychiatric treatment from Community Health Programme, Kottayam. On examination Benny was found to have restricted effect. He expressed persecutory delusions. He needed psychiatric intervention. His delusions were active at that point of time which could become potentially dangerous to himself and others. He needed supervisory care at that point of time. He may also require long time supervised care also. According to DW1, it was better to treat the patient in a centre where custodial supervised care was available like in a Government Mental Health Centre or Psychiatry ward of the Government Medical College, Kottayam. The certificate issued by her has been marked as Ext.D1. DW1 further deposed that a person with symptoms like the accused, could have mood swings and if such a person does not regularly take medicines, there was every possibility of the ailment becoming severe. She also said that such patients unless supervised, would not take medicines regularly. Such patients in the initial stages will have depression and hyperactivity. When she examined Benny Joseph, he had strong feelings of persecutory delusions. Persecutory delusions could happen all on a sudden or otherwise. DW1 said she cannot say whether the persecutory delusions she noticed in Benny, had developed all on a sudden. There is also every possibility that a person under continued treatment for a long time for paranoid schizophrenia, would have continued persecutory delusions and a person having delusions would not have the insight to know the consequences of the act done by him. According to DW1, the patient could be brought back to normal condition, only after long time supervised treatment is given to him. To a court question as to whether a person of the description mentioned in Ext.D1, is taken to a casuality medical officer who interacts with the patient, would it be possible to clinically identify the delusions if any, she answered, that it would be possible if the doctor is properly trained. Sometimes it may not be possible to detect the delusions. She also added that if the patient had any mental issues, that would have been noted during the examination and the patient referred to the Psychiatric Department.

34. DW3, PRO, SH Hospital, Painkulam, Idukki stated that Dr. Angel and Dr. Magi who had treated Benny, are no more. He produced the documents relating to the treatment records of the accused maintained in the hospital. Finally, DW4, Consultant Psychiatrist in the aforesaid hospital, deposed that while he was working in the said hospital, Dr.Magie and Dr.Angel Mary were also working in the said hospital. Both have passed away. As per Ext.D6 series case record maintained in the hospital, Benny Joseph had been a patient of Dr.Magie and Dr.Angel from 20/03/1997 onwards. As per records, the patient has psychiatric issues like suspicious ideas which started four years before his treatment commenced. Benny was a patient of Dr.Sudarsan of Moolamattom, Valayil Hospital, where also he was treated by a psychiatrist and the illness noted is paranoid schizophrenia. He had ideas of persecution, bizarre delusions and thought alienation. Dr.Magie who has issued Ext.D6(a) certificate had noted that the patient needed lifelong medication. The patient had last come to the hospital on 08/10/2013, on which day, medicines for 15 days' had been given. There has been no follow-up thereafter. DW4 also stated that the patient had been treated as an inpatient many a time in the hospital. The severity of the symptoms in case of paranoid schizophrenia would vary from person to person. To a question whether such a patient would behave normally even when the symptoms are at its height, he answered in the negative.

36. It is evident from the materials on record that the accused was mentally unsound before and after the incident. As held in Hari Singh Gond (Supra), in all cases where previous insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations will have to be borne in mind. Whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in a manner which showed a desire to concealment; whether after the crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detection; whether after his arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements. It is true that in the case on hand, when the accused was heard on the question of sentence, he responded that the stand taken by his lawyer that he is mentally unsound, is a wrong/incorrect statement. However, from the facts and circumstances in this case, that is, the motive alleged or the circumstances under which the accused is stated to have committed the crime; his subsequent conduct of remaining calmly in a closed room in the same house; coming out of the room without any resistance when asked to do so and confessing to the crime to all those who enquired about it, coupled with the ample evidence on record that he was under treatment for paranoid schizophrenia from the year 1997, do raise doubts in our mind as to whether the accused was in a normal mental state when the incident took place. Right from the time of his first remand, that is, on 22/02/2015, till the time of commencement of the trial on 19/08/2019, the accused was in and out of the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, undergoing treatment. The evidence of the psychiatrists shows that the accused suffering from schizophrenia had impaired judgment, partial insight and strong delusions of persecution. In the facts and circumstances of this case we find that the accused has been successful in establishing his case by a preponderance of probabilities.