Full Judgment
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 ..... Date of decision:19.2.2013 Satish ...Appellant v. State of Haryana ...Respondent .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh ..... Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ...... Inderjit Singh, J.Appellant-Satish has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.7.2008/31.7.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhajjar whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [2]. concurrently. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one V.T. from Police Station City, Rewari had been received in Police Station Salhawas regarding admission of Raghubir in injured condition in Arvind Yadav Hospital, Rewari. Upon which, ASI Rattan Parkash along with other Police officials reached Police Station City, Rewari and obtained MLR not AYHR21/05 of injured Raghubir and thereafter the doctor produced before the Investigating Officer MLR not AYHRC No.22/05 dated 20.11.2005 with `Ruqa’ of Naraini Devi, who was also injured in the occurrence. He obtained the opinion of the doctor regarding the injured as to whether they were fit to make statements or not. Naraini Devi was declared fit to make statement and Raghubir Singh was declared unfit to make statement. Statement of Naraini Devi was recorded, who mainly stated that she has seven sons and one daughter. Her six sons were living separately with their families. Her son Satish, who was unmarried, was living with them. On 19.11.2005, she was sleeping with her husband Raghubir and her son Satish in a room in their house. At about 10.30 p.m., her son Satish started quarrelling with his father and demanded money on the pretext of his treatment and for bringing the clothes. Hearing the noise of quarrel, she woke-up. Her husband asked Satish that at that time he had no money and he would pay the money to him after getting the same from his brothers. After hearing the same, Satish started quarreling, he lifted a `Bankri’ (Rapri) lying in the room and inflicted three blows on his father, which hit him on his both sides of ears and leg. When the complainant tried Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [3]. to intervene, Satish gave a blow of `Bankri’ on her head. Hearing their noise of “Bachao-Bachao”., Satish left the house along with his `Bankri’. On coming to knot about the quarrel, Fateh Singh and Jagdish came at the spot. After arranging a vehicle, they admitted the complainant and her husband in Arvind Yadav Hospital, Rewari for treatment. The complainant further stated that Satish caused the injuries to Raghubir due to non- payment of money to him. The above statement of the complainant was recorded by ASI Rattan Parkash of Police Station, Salhawas at about 9.30 p.m. on 20.11.2005. `Ruqa’ was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered at 12.05 a.m. on 21.11.2005. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex.P.19. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and taken into Police possession after converting the same into sealed parcel. On 23.11.2005, the accused was arrested from his house. On 24.11.2005, the accused was interrogated and he made disclosure statement regarding concealing of axe and he got recovered the same in pursuance of his disclosure statement, which was taken into Police possession after preparing sketch and sealed parcel. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellant Satish framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Naraini Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [4]. Devi-complainant and injured eye witness, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. In examination-in-chief, she also stated that the accused is mentally disturbed. Due to his condition, he caused injuries to her husband and to her. Volunteered that he had also broken the `Murtis’ of a temple situated at Rewari due to his mental condition and that they had paid money to that temple. PW-2 Fateh Singh mainly deposed that on 19.11.2005 at 10.30 p.m., he was sleeping in their plot situated at the outskirts of the village. His brother Jagdish came to him and told that accused Satish had caused injuries to his father with axe after locking them inside the room and he also caused injuries to his mother. He also stated that the accused was attempting to strangulate the son of his brother Jagdish. Then he reached the place of occurrence. Many persons were gathered there. Then he shifted his parents firstly to Kosli for treatment and then to Arvind Hospital for treatment and his father remained under treatment for 4/5 days and remained unconscious during this period and then he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. PW-3 Constable Jai Chand mainly deposed regarding preparing scaled site plan Ex.P.2. PW-4 Constable Jai Bhagwan deposed regarding delivery of special report. PW-5 Constable Davender Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P.4. PW-6 Dr. Lili Kuti mainly deposed regarding medico- legal examination of Raghubir on 20.11.2005 at about 12.10 a.m. and the doctor found the following injuries:-
“1. Right ear near total amputation of the ear with multiple lacerations and denuding of the skin with multiple Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [5]. fragmentation of ear cartilage with complete transaction of right superficial temporal artery.
2. Left ear multiple lacerations of less intensity, post auricular region and increased intensity anterior aspect.
3. Contusions lower third anterior neck and anterior 3rd of upper chest.
4. Clean lacerated wound 6x2 cm with transactions of left patellar tendon left knee.
5. Brain had contusions in the NCCT brain and referred to Neuro-Surgeon.”
. On the same day, the doctor also medico-legally examined Naraini Devi. There was alleged history of homicidal attempt by her own son and the doctor found the following injuries on her person:-
“1. Patient had two adjacent lacerated wound of 2 x 1 cm left frontal area of skull.
2. Another wound 3 x 1.5 cm right frontal area.”
. The doctor proved the MLR. PW-7 Dr. Ravi Rajjan mainly deposed regarding giving opinion that injured Raghubir Singh was fit to make statement. He stated that the patient died on 25.11.2005 at 7.15 a.m. following cardio respiratory arrest. He also deposed that on 7.12.2005, the Police moved application Ex.P.10 before him along with a sealed `Kulhari’ for opinion to the effect that whether the injury on the person of Raghubir could be caused by the weapon produced before him and he gave his opinion Ex.P.10/A. Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [6]. PW-8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Ranga mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Raghubir on 25.11.2005 and found the following injuries:-
“1. Atracheostomy wound lower neck present.
2. Stitched wound left side face extending prom helix of pinna and post auricular region.
3. Stitched wound two in number (i) upper part of pinna (Helix) (ii) at lobule of right side pinna going post auricular region.
4. Stitched wound left knee size 5 cm.
5. Brownish scabbed wound 1 x 1 cm left frontal region.
6. Bluish contusions lower 1/3 of ant. Neck and ant. Upper third of chest.”
. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage which was due to injury to vital organs (Brain). All injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injury and death was variable and between death and post-mortem examination was 6 to 36 hours. PW-9 HC Satbir Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P.12. PW-10 SI Rajinder Singh mainly deposed regarding preparing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW-11 SI Laxmi Narain mainly deposed that on receiving a message regarding the death of Raghubir, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. He also deposed Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [7]. regarding preparing inquest report. PW-12 EHC Mahender Singh was with ASI Rattan Parkash and he mainly deposed regarding disclosure statement made by accused and recovery of axe in pursuance of disclosure statement. PW-13 ASI Rattan Parkash is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding conducting the investigation of the case. The Public Prosecutor then closed the prosecution evidence. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He stated that it is a false case against him. He had nothing to do with the present case. He had been falsely implicated in this false case. He is of unsound mind person. He had not committed an offence. Before this occurrence, he was under treatment in Psychiatric Center at Jaipur. On 4.6.2005 and 30.9.2005, he was also under treatment in Psychiatric Centre at Jaipur. He was under depression in jail also, where he was medically examined in PGIMS, Rohtak, on the direction of the Hon’ble Court. He was medically examined by the Board of doctors and on 28.1.2006 gave a medical report regarding his ailment. not he is also under Psychiatric problem. He is innocent. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Dr. Rajiv Gupta, Senior Professor, Department of Psychiatry, PGIMS, Rohtak. He brought the summoned records of patient Satish, who was admitted in the Department of Psychiatry from 8.12.2006 to 14.12.2006. The patient was examined by the Board comprising of him, Dr. Sujata Sethi and Dr. Amit Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [8]. Nayar. After examining the case, the Board was of the opinion that Satish was suffering from Schizophrenic disorder and he was discharged with advice to take regular medication and regular follow-up. Schizophrenia is chronic disorder with relapses and remissions depending upon the circumstances of the patient. It is not a disorder like epilepsy where patient has fits. In this case, the patient has symptoms like where he was deluded and heard voices which were threatening in nature. He has symptoms where he was controlled by voices which at time controlled his actions. During active symptoms the patient could harm others or himself. DW-2 Jagdish is brother of the accused and son of the deceased. He stated that before this occurrence, Satish was in spate of `Mirgi’ problem. He had got treated him from Mental Hospital, Jaipur. He got him treated through Dr. Pradeep Sharma. Before this occurrence, his brother on hearing the voice of thunder once fallen in the well and then he was taken out by them from that well. They then tied him with the rope. He got himself free by cutting the rope and damaged either of a temple with the help of axe. Their family was fined a sum of `15,000/- by the management of the temple. He also used to disturb the supply from the tube-well by putting a nail (Kil) and used to shout that this was a `Karishma’ of God. He had no ill-will or grudge against his parents or any other family members. He attacked on his parents due to impact of this disease. DW-3 Hawa Singh, who is younger brother of the accused, also deposed on the same lines. DW-4 Dr. Pradeep Sharma, Professor and Unit Head, Department of Psychiatry, SMS Medical College and Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur deposed that on 4.6.2005 patient Satish was Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [9]. admitted in their aforesaid Centre and was discharged on 16.6.2005. The unit collectively diagnosed him as suffering from Schizophrenia. The patient exhibited symptoms of being far away from reality, either excited or keeping to himself, abnormal behaviour, irrelevant talking, suspiciousness, lack of sleep, inability to take care of personal hygiene, abuses, violent and feeling that some black magic had been done upon him and was talking to himself and most importantly, he had delusions of control, wherein he felt that his mind and behaviour was controlled by outside agencies. While looking at the record, it appears that patient had been ill for the last five years and his illness was continued and on certain occasions he would only partially recover and that too because of medication. Keeping in view the history that patient would not recover fully, the most powerful drug was used to control his behaviour. While in the hospital for 12 days, his violent behaviour came down and on 16.6.2005, it was deemed that patient could be managed at home by his care givers, while ensuring that he would be properly medicated and would keep his appointment with the outdoor and Psychiatric Centre. From the record, it appears that after discharge on 16.6.2005, the patient came on 20.8.2005, when the medicine was continued and he was asked to get certain blood tests done. Next time, he came to them on 30.9.2005 with the same clinical condition of having recovered partially. But since the patient could not get the blood investigations done on a periodic basis of 7 days each, they changed the medications to slightly lesser drug on 30.9.2005. Thereafter, Ex.DW-4/A and Ex.DW-4/B are the OPD cards. Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [10]. After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Satish for the offences as mentioned above. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted the occurrence and argued on one point only that the appellant is suffering from the disease of Schizophrenia. Under the effect of this disease, he caused the occurrence. Otherwise, there was no motive to cause the occurrence. He argued that as per Section 84 IPC, the appellant is entitled to acquittal as he had neither intention to murder not he was having knowledge that his act could cause the death. He, therefore, argued that the appeal be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted accordingly. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State argued that the appellant at the time of occurrence was not of unsound mind. Therefore, his case does not fall under Section 84 IPC and no benefit can be given to the appellant and the appeal should be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. From the record, we find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. From the evidence on record, it is duly proved by injured PW-1 Naraini Devi that Satish-appellant was sleeping with them in the same room and he caused injuries to Raghubir her husband and she also sustained injuries given by accused with the said `Bankri’. In cross- Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [11]. examination though Naraini Devi stated that she did not notice the accused- appellant inflicting injuries to her husband as she was sleeping at that time which does not mean that the appellant had not committed the occurrence. The statement of eye witness Naraini Devi is duly supported by medical evidence that is injuries on the person of Raghubir and injuries on her person. The appellant has also got recovered the axe. It also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Further, it is admitted by the defence that the occurrence was caused by the appellant but under the effect of the disease Schizophrenia. Rather, DW-2 Jagdish and DW-3 Hawa Singh had admitted that the appellant attacked on their parents due to the impact of this disease. Therefore, from the defence version, statement of the accused- appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the statement of eye witness, which is supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case, we hold that the appellant has caused the death of Raghubir by giving injuries with axe (Kulhari) and further caused injuries to his mother PW-1 Naraini Devi. As regards the fact that the appellant was suffering from the mental disease, we find that PW-1 Naraini Devi-complainant and injured witness in examination-in-chief has stated that the appellant is mentally disturbed due to his condition. He had caused injuries to her and her husband. She has also stated that he has also broken the idols of temple situated at Rewari due to his mental condition and that they had paid money to that temple. This statement supports and corroborates the defence evidence. In cross-examination, she also stated that there was no dispute between Satish-appellant and her husband. Her son Satish was getting Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [12]. treatment from Jaipur. This fact has been further supported and corroborated by DW-2 and DW-3 brothers of the accused-appellant. The statement of PW-2 Fateh Singh also shows the mental condition of the accused-appellant. Further we find that the appellant was also examined by the Board of doctors and he remained admitted in the hospital during the pendency of the trial from 8.12.2006 to 14.12.2006 and the doctors gave the opinion that the accused was suffering from Schizophrenia disease and he was discharged with advice to take regular medicine. Further DW-4, who treated the accused-appellant in June 2005 and then on 30.9.2005 had also deposed that he was suffering from disease Schizophrenia. As per DW-4 Dr. Pradeep Sharma, the appellant came to them on 30.9.2005 with the same clinical condition of having recovered partially but since the patient could not get blood investigations done on a periodic basis of 7 days each, they changed the medications to slightly lesser drug on 30.9.2005 as per documents Ex.DW-4/A and Ex.DW-4/B. The document Ex.DW-4/B is dated 30.9.2005 and the medicine prescribed as per this document is for two months and this occurrence took place between two months which means that at the time of occurrence, the accused-appellant was suffering from the disease Schizophrenia and he caused the occurrence under the effect of the disease Schizophrenia. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 200.SC 3399.In this case, it has been held that plea of insanity taken by the accused is to be proved by the accused. Accused is not Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [13]. to prove insanity conclusively as in civil case. He can prove the same by means of preponderance probabilities from the prosecution evidence placed on record. We have gone through the judgment of this case. The law laid down in this judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, there was no motive on the part of appellant for killing his father and causing injuries to his mother. The appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment. The appellant was treated for unsoundness of mind and diagnosed as suffering from disease Schizophrenia. Even during the trial, he was examined by the Board of doctors and found suffering from the disease Schizophrenia. Further, we find that the evidence of DW-1 and DW-4 doctors produced on record by the appellant fully proves that he was suffering from this disease and, therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the appellant committed the act when he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind due to this disease Schizophrenia. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
“84. Act of a person of unsound mind.- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
. Therefore, the case of the appellant falls under Section 84 of the IPC. Hence, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and acquit the accused-appellant Satish son of Raghubir Singh, resident of Burawas, District Jhajjar, in case Cr. Appeal not D-762-DB of 2008 [14]. FIR No.117 dated 21.11.2005, under Sections 302, 307 and 323 IPC, Police Station Salhawas (Jhajjar). He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. He is ordered to be released from jail. The Superintendent Jail is directed to take him in safe custody till such time an application is moved by his relative/guardian. If any application is moved, Successor Court may take action as per provisions of Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C. If no such application is filed within two months, then Superintendent Jail will take action as per provisions of Chapter XXV Cr.P.C. Registry is directed to inform the State Government regarding order passed by this Court. Action taken report be called within three months and be placed on record. (Jasbir Singh) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge February 19, 2013. *hsp*