Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor was heard.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the evidence establish that it was the appellant who caused the death of Ayishabi, the mother, by throttling, the evidence also establish that he was being treated for Paranoid Schizophrenia from 1.12.2005 onwards and after his remand, he was produced before the doctor due to the mental illness on 31.1.2006 and he continued the treatment as an in-patient till he was discharged on 9.8.2006 and again, he was treated for the same illness from 19.7.2007 till he was discharged on 9.4.2008 and in such circumstances, there is evidence to prove that appellant was suffering from mental illness due to Paranoid Schizophrenia, when he caused the death of Ayishabi and it is thus clear that appellant was unaware of the consequence of his act or that he was doing something wrong or contrary to law and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in denying the benefit under section 84 of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that evidence of PW2, the brother, establish that appellant did not attempt to conceal the murder or absconded after the murder and there is no motive for the murder and in such circumstances, it is clear that appellant did not commit the murder of his mother with the knowledge that he is committing the murder or that he is doing something wrong or contrary to law and in such circumstances, the conviction is unsustainable. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2009 SC 97), the learned counsel argued that the disclosure in Ext.P1 First Information Statement would reveal that appellant committed the act due to his mental illness and hence the investigating officer has a duty to get the appellant examined by a Psychiatrist after his arrest and PW9 failed to take the appellant to a doctor to get his mental condition determined and the evidence of PW9 establish that he did not conduct any investigation on the mental condition of the appellant, at the time of commission of offence. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 3399), the learned counsel argued that this is a fit case where the learned Sessions Judge should have granted the benefit under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel argued that the learned Sessions Judge failed to take note of the fact that though the burden to prove that the appellant is entitled to the benefit under section 84 of IPC is on the appellant, the burden is not as stringent as that of the prosecution to prove their case and when the circumstances and the evidence unerringly point out that the appellant was suffering from mental illness on the date of commission of the offence, his conviction is not legal.

"10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develops into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but are afterwards changes into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He belives that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room, and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation gives rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from prosecutory to the grandlose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his money and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversations is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edn.)).

15. The facts of the case considered by the Division Bench in Kuttappan's case (supra) establish that the accused in that case was treated for Paranoid Schizophrenia. The murder was on 3.4.1982. Evidence establish that the accused was treated for reactive depression from 12.12.1977 to 27.2.1978, 6.4.1978 to 8.4.1978 and 10.4.1978 to 15.4.1978 and he was again treated from 6.3.1979 to 4.1.1980. On the evidence, this Court found that the accused was suffering from minor mental illness which developed to paranoid psychosis and later into Paranoid Schizophrenia. It was held:-

16. Ext.P1 itself discloses that it was made known to the investigating officer that the appellant is suffering from mental illness and the act would have been committed due to his mental illness. Even though the appellant was arrested on the same day, the investigating officer did not get the appellant examined by a Psychiatrist to find out whether the appellant was having the knowledge of the nature of his act or that whether he knew that what he has done was wrong or contrary to law at that time. The investigating officer also did not conduct any investigation whatsoever to find out the mental capacity of the appellant at the time of committing the offence, so as to discharge the general burden of the prosecution that appellant committed the offence with sufficient mens rea. The evidence of DW1 with Exts.D1 to D3 establish that appellant was suffering from mental illness six months prior to 1.12.2005 and he was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Kuthiravattom on 1.12.2005 and he absconded from the hospital without continuing the treatment, within two days. Evidence also establish that immediately after the arrest and remand, appellant exhibited symptoms of mental illness which persuaded the jail authorities to bring it to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who directed his examination by a Psychiatrist and consequently, the appellant was treated as inpatient at Mental Hospital, Kuthiravattom from 31.1.2006 onwards. Evidence of DW1 with Exts.D1 to D3 establish that appellant was being treated for Paranoid Schizophrenia. Even if such a patient was discharged from the hospital, if he discontinued to have the prescribed drugs, the illness would recur. So also when a person is having the illness of Paranoid Schizophrenia, he will not be fully aware of the nature of his acts or its consequences. Therefore, even though there is no evidence to prove the exact mental condition of the appellant at 4.00 a.m., on 18.1.2006, when he committed the murder, when the evidence establish that appellant was suffering from paranoid psychosis at least seven months earlier to the date of commission of offence, there is a reasonable doubt that at the time of committing the murder, appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of his unsound mind. If so, he is entitled to the benefit of section 84 of Indian Penal Code. In any case it is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt whether the appellant had the mens rea required for the offence and if so, prosecution must be taken to have failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the evidence, we hold that at the time of the occurrence, appellant was a person of unsound mind and by reason of such illness, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. He is therefore entitled to be acquitted by virtue of section 84 of Indian Penal Code.