Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Upon Finding Accused Was Of Unsound Mind, Directs Production Before Mental Health Review Board
The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the conviction of a man under Section 302 of IPC passed by the Trial Court on the ground that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident and was not capable of understanding the consequences of his action.While setting aside the conviction, the division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Malasri Nandi observed:“…….we are...
The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the conviction of a man under Section 302 of IPC passed by the Trial Court on the ground that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident and was not capable of understanding the consequences of his action.
While setting aside the conviction, the division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Malasri Nandi observed:
“…….we are of the view that though the appellant was the person who killed the deceased with a spade, we cannot say with certainty that the appellant was of sound mind at the time the incident occurred, i.e. it cannot be said that the appellant was capable of understanding the consequences of his action.”
The case of the prosecution was that an FIR dated March 10, 2012, was submitted before the Officer-in-charge, Dokmoka Police Station by Prosecution Witness-2 (PW-2), stating that her husband was murdered by the accused-appellant with a spade, while the deceased was watching T.V in his house at about 4:30 p.m.
Under the said FIR, a case was registered under Section 302 of IPC against the accused-appellant. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
The accused-appellant appealed the judgment passed by the Trial Court in the present hearing.
The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a perusal of the case records and the orders passed during the trial showed that the appellant appeared to be a person of unsound mind.
It was brought to the Court's notice that after the testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 had been recorded by the Trial Court, it had observed that the appellant seemed to be a person of unsound mind and directed that he should be examined by medical experts in Diphu Civil Hospital, to ascertain as to whether he was of unsound mind or not.
However, no report was made by the medical expert as had been directed by the Trial Court, and no decision had been taken by the Trial Court concerning its apprehension or suspicion regarding the sanity of the appellant.
The appellant's Counsel argued that the impugned judgment would have to be set aside, as no trial could have been concluded without the Trial Court having first decided as to whether the appellant was a person of unsound mind and could stand trial or not.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the appellant in his confessional statement made under Section 164 CrPC and during his examination under Section 313 CrPC admitted to having killed his uncle.
It was further submitted that the Trail Court, in the impugned judgment, had come to a finding that the act of the appellant in killing his uncle, was not due to unsoundness of mind in terms of Section 84 of IPC since no evidence had been led by the appellant, to show that he suffered from unsoundness of mind.
The Court noted that the appellant had been arrested on March 10, 2012 and the doctor who examined him on the next date, made an observation of “Irrelevant Talking” and advised “psychiatry consultation”.
The Court further highlighted that instead of the Police and the Magistrate concerned attempting to follow up on the medical advice, the police had forwarded the appellant before a Magistrate on March 15, 2012, for recording his statement under Section 164 CrPC, wherein he admitted to killing his uncle with a spade, as his uncle allegedly did not allow him to stay on his land.
It was noted by the Court that PW-1 had stated in her cross-examination that the appellant had a mental disorder and that sometimes he roamed around with an axe and/or a knife.
The Court by its earlier order during the pendency of the appeal constituted a Medical Board which submitted its report on August 21, 2023, stating that the appellant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and was of unsound mind at the time of examination of the appellant.
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surendra Misra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495, in which it was held that an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 IPC is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity.
Reliance was further placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 718 wherein it was held that in cases where the benefit of Section 84 IPC is given, the onus on the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is not stringent as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused has only to establish his defence on a preponderance of probability, after which the onus shifts to the prosecution to establish the inapplicability of the exception.
The Court further placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970) 3 SCC 533, in which it was held that if from the materials placed on record, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court concerning the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequential acquittal.
The Court recorded that the manner in which the questions have been put to the appellant, keeping in mind the unanswered question of unsoundness of mind of the appellant by the Trial Court had caused prejudice to the appellant and as such, had vitiated the trial.
“In the present case, there is nothing to doubt the finding of the learned Trial Court that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. Despite the learned Trial Court directing medical examination of the appellant, as there was a doubt with regard to his sanity, which implied that he was incapable of defending himself, no such examination was done,” the Court said.
The Court further noted that as the Investigating Officer had not been examined as a prosecution witness, which created a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and caused prejudice to the appellant.
The Court opined:
“…….keeping in mind the testimony of PW-1, the Doctor's advice for “psychiatry consultation” and the Trial Court order dated 18.07.2016, the inquiry/trial should have been stopped until a decision had been taken under Section 328/329 Cr.P.C, as to whether the inquiry/trial should have been stopped. As the same has not been done, we are of the view that the appellant has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself, as his capability to defend himself had not been decided. The same being a mandatory condition under Section 328/329 Cr.P.C, the failure to take a decision on the capability of the appellant to defend himself has caused prejudice to the appellant and in our view has occasioned a failure of justice.”
Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant by giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was of unsound mind, incapable of defending himself and there was due to lapses on the part of the Police and the Magistrate/Court.
“As the finding of the Medical Board dated 21.08.2023 is to the effect that the appellant suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, the respondents are directed to release the appellant from jail and produce the appellant before the Mental Health Review Board constituted under Chapter XI of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, who shall then examine the appellant and take a decision with regard to the future course of action to be taken in respect of the appellant in terms of the 2017 Act,” the Court added.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 109
Case Title: Sri Upen Basumatary v. The State of Assam
Case No.: CRLA(J)/111/2018