Prakash v. State of Maharashtra — 1984 DIGILAW 151 (BOM)

Judgement MASODKAR, J. :- The present appellant-accused stood charged and, eventually, has been found guilty of having committeed the murder of one Balu Shivaba Naik during the night of 10-7-1981 at about 11.45 p.m. at village Vatangi. By the present appeal, he challenges the said order of conviction and eventual sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. 2. As far as the present case is concerned, the defence of the accused was one covered by S.84 of the Penal Code. That defence was taken in the lower Court and was also pressed in this Court and it is the main contention of the accused-appellant that at the time of the commission of the act, by reason of unsoundness of the mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act : thus he was not guilty of the offence. 3. For the purpose of this appeal, we got the report from the jail authorities and, after getting the accused produced before us we also questioned him. A memorandu in that regard is separately made and is at Ex. A to the appel. The psychiatrist attached to the Yeravada Central Prison, where the accused is lodged, has sent a report stating therein that since 6th June 1983, the accused was under treatment for mental disorder and was discharged after showing improvement as on 18th Jan. 1984. The memorandum we have made also shows that the accused was capable of understanding the things and thus we proceeded to hear the appeal as the accused was, during the course of the hearing of the appeal, found to be of sound mind. 4. The relevant question that arises in the present appeal is as to whether on the day of the incident and during the course of the event that resulted in the homicidal death of Balu Shivaba Naik, the accused was affected by any mental disorder and, by reason of that, was not knowing the nature of the incident. 5. On the first aspect, that Balu Shivaba Naik met the homicidal death as a result of the violent assault by the accused, there is hardly any dispute. The evidence of Ramchandra Desai( PW 1) goes to show that the accused as well as Balu Naik had both come to his house and all of them had gone to sleep at about 10.00 p.m. They were sleeping in the veranda. The evidence of Ramchandra Desai( PW 1) goes to show that the accused as well as Balu Naik had both come to his house and all of them had gone to sleep at about 10.00 p.m. They were sleeping in the veranda. At about 11.00 p.m, his daughter and sister-in- law returned from a marriage and he opened the door and, at that time, he had found the accused as well as Balu Naik sleeping in the verandah. It was after some time that the accused got up and complained that he heard sound like 'Khat-Khat'. He was told by Ramchandra that women-folk had just returned from the marriage and that they may be doing something in the house and that he should go to sleep. Again, after some time, the accused got up and similarly complained. He was told that there was nothing and, therefore, he should go to sleep. Again, the accused got up and complained that he heard the same Khat-Khat sound more loudly and, so saying, he went ahead, picked up a chair and threw it on the stair case, as a result of which the chair broke. Thereafter, the accused went inside where the females were sleeping. The witness heard the shout of his daughter that the accused was behaving in an irregular way, Ramchandra then asked Balu Naik to get up and both of them went inside to find out what the accused was doing. Ramchandra saw that the accused was holding a plank of the broken chair and was looking at the women-folk in an unusual manner. He was staring at the women and Ramchandra thought that he was searching for his wife. Ramchandra asked the accused as to what he was doing in the women's room and went ahead to snatch the plank. The accused then held up the plank and pushed Ramchandra, as a result of which Ramchandra fell down. Then Balu Naik went ahead and asked the accused as to what he was doing in the women's room and wanted to snatch the plank from the hand of the accused but the accused pushed him back and, as Balu Naik was bending, the accused hit him with the plank on his head. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly gave 7 or 8 blows on the body of Balu Naik. Balu fell down. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly gave 7 or 8 blows on the body of Balu Naik. Balu fell down. All the blows given by the accused landed on the head of Balu Naik. After the assault, the accused ran towards his own house. Ramchandra woke up his servant Tukaram and asked him to go to the house of Baburao, the accused's father, and inform him about the assault. As a hue and cry was raised, the neighbours, including the police Patil came to the place. The injured Balu was groaning in pain. Witness Ramchandra eventually lodged the complaint the next day going to Ajara as per Ex. 14. Similar version was disclosed to the police in the complaint available at Ex. 14, on the basis of which the F.I.R was lodged. 6. The testimony of Kashibai (PW 2), who is the sister-in-law of Ramchandra, is similar with regard to the events that occurred during the night after she returned at about 11.30 p.m. along with the daughter of Ramchandra by name Ratnamala. She, too, stated that the accused entered the room where the females were chitchatting and when Ramchandra went ahead to snatch the plank, the accused pushed him back, as a result of which Ramchandra fell down and when Balu Naik went ahead to catch hold of him, the accused assaulted him by giving repeated blows by means of the plank. Balu fell down and, even after he had fallen down, the accused continued to hit him on the head. The panchanama of the scene of offence at Ex 9 and the inquest panchanama at Ex. 8 go to show how the dead body was seen lying and that it had external injuries all over the body. It is significant that Ex. 9 shows the extent of violence to which Balu was subjected. Not only was the blood spread all through to the extent of 7 feet, but even the brain-matter appeared to be lying near the wall. Four pieces of Shisvi wood were seen lying in a scattered condition near the dead body. The dead body of Balu was subjected to post-mortem examination at the behest of the police and the testimony of Dr. Shridhar Patil (P.W. 3) and his post-mortem examination notes at Ex. 17 go to show that the doctor observed as many as 11 external injuries, including lacerated wounds, mostly on the skull part. The dead body of Balu was subjected to post-mortem examination at the behest of the police and the testimony of Dr. Shridhar Patil (P.W. 3) and his post-mortem examination notes at Ex. 17 go to show that the doctor observed as many as 11 external injuries, including lacerated wounds, mostly on the skull part. Similarly, there were contused lacerated wounds on the left fore-arm. Abrasions as well as bruises, too, were noticed. Dr. Patil deposed that the blows must have been given with great force and that, due to the force, the skull bone was fractured and the brain matter had come out and that death must have been instantaneous. Upon internal examination, he found fracture of the skull bone in pieces and there were innumerable fractures all over the skull. 7. All this evidence goes to show that Balu met homicidal death as a result of the extremely violent assault on him by the accused. On this aspect, the case does not admit any doubt. 8. Now, turning to the plea of insanity based on S.84 of the I.P.C. reliance is placed on the direct testimony of complainant Ramchandra (PW 1); witness Kashibai (PW 2); the evidence of the wife of the accused, Mangala (PW5); the evidence of Dr. Yeshawant Kelkar (DW 1) and the evidence of the father of the accused, Baburao Desai, examined as D.W.2. Apart from this, at Ex. 25 are the papers which show that just before 2 months or so of the date of the incident, the accused had returned to India from Jordan, where he had taken an employment and the reason for his discharge from Jordan was the same, in that he was a psychic patient and was mentally troubled to a great extent Dr. Kelkar's testimony shows that after the accused was put under arrest tor the offence in the case, he was initially sent to the Mental Hospital, Rantnagiri, while in police custody. On 23rd Sept 1981, Dr. Kelkar rufused to admit him, holding that his may be a case of pretended insanity, so as to avoid the criminal liability but it appears from his testimony that after about 3 days, i.e. on 26th Sept 1981, the accused was, in fact admitted in the Mental Hospital and was under treatment for mental disorder for about 5 months and was being treated for a mental disorder - schizophrenia. He was subjected to electro convulsive therapy as well as other drugs. Even after the conviction, it does appear from the report of the Yeravada Central Prison psychiatrist that the accused was showing symptoms of mental disorder and was treated from 6th June 1983 to 18th Jan 1984. 9. Now, to apply the provisions of S.84 of the I.P.C, so as to relieve the person from criminal liability, it is well-settled that the conduct of the accused preceding the act complained of, as well as succeeding the act and also his conduct during the course of the complained incident, all call for closer scrutiny. The record, like the present one, that prior to the actual incident, the accused was suffering from mental disorder and also he was treated for such mental disorder after the incident would certainly assist the Court in coming to a just and proper conclusion. 10. Having observed so, we proceed to appreciate the evidence on this aspect, as is available on record. The testimony of Baburao (DW 2), the father of the accused, is to the effect that the accused had first served for some time in Bombay and then went to Jordan. From there, he used to send him money. The accused used to love his wife. He returned from Jordan in the month of June 1981 and thereafter had brought his wife back and they were living good married life. For about 7 days or so before the murder, the accused was behaving like a mad man. He told Baburao that he returned from Jordan because he was not pulling on well there and he started feeling home-sick. He used to mutter something to himself, and further he used to tell his father, "Get out". On the earlier day of the incident, he had not allowed Baburao or his wife to enter the house and had beaten his wife Mangala without any provocation. On the day of the incident, he left the house and went to the house of Ramchandra. Baburao stated that he had decided to lodge the accused in the Mental Hospital at Miraj. It was he who had sent Balu Naik to Ramchandra's place to give him company and so also to look after the accused. On that night, the accused returned at about 12 midnight and before that the servant of Ramchandra had informed him not to open the door. It was he who had sent Balu Naik to Ramchandra's place to give him company and so also to look after the accused. On that night, the accused returned at about 12 midnight and before that the servant of Ramchandra had informed him not to open the door. The accused came to the front door and fell down unconcious. He vomitted also. After opening the door, the accused was taken inside and tied by a rope. In the morning, he regained consciousness at about 11.00 a.m and when he was told that he had murdered Balu Naik the previous night the accused started crying aloud. It was then that the accused was released and the police came and took him away. The cross-examination of Baburao, as far as the relations between the accused and his wife Mangala are concerned, shows that he is not telling the truth. It does appear that the relations between the accused and his wife were strained and the accused was suspecting the character of Mangala. He has studied up to 11th Standard. The letters which the accused had written to Baburao are at Exs. 33 and 34. Those were written from Jordan to baburao and, in those letters, there is a clear mention that he was deserting his wife who was a bad example before the society. They further mention that the writer of the letter had chosen his path and that he fully knew what was good for him. These two letters are between the period Dec 1980 and Jan 1981. Baburao's statement that the relations between Mangala and the accused were happy, does not appear to be correct at all. Further, the other aspect about the behaviour of the accused, as is spoken to by Baburao, is not seriously questioned. In fact, even in cross-examination, Baburao stated that on the day earlier to the day of the murder, the accused had beaten his wife with a fire wood and had asked her to "Get out". He further stated that the servant of Ramchandra had come and informed them that the accused had committed the murder of Balu Naik and that the accused should not be allowed to enter the house. He further stated that the servant of Ramchandra had come and informed them that the accused had committed the murder of Balu Naik and that the accused should not be allowed to enter the house. The testimony of Mangala (PW 5), the wife of the accused goes to show that they were married about 3 years before and she had given birth to a female child and the daughter was one and half years old. After the marriage, the couple had stayed in Bombay for about one year in one room at Andheri. Her brother-in-law had come to Bombay and it appears that there was some incident in which the accused began to suspect the relations of Mangala and his brother. She became pregnant while in Bombay and went to Hindalga for delivery and delivered in August 1980. Though she had told the police that her brother-in-law had tried to molest her, she did not admit that in her evidence, nor did she admit the statement which she had made to the police that her husband had expressed that the child was not his. She was clearly trying to support the accused on this aspect, but her statement after she was cross-examined by the prosecution clearly showed that there was some complaint made with regard to her involvement with her brother-in- law and both of them were asked to pick up holy ash. She further statd that, at Vatangi, her husband had beaten her by means of a fire wood and there was no reason for beating. She eventually admitted that the accused had told her that he suspected her character and that the child should be got examined by a doctor. For that he wanted Mangala to go to Belgaum. Though she had told the police that her husband had threatened to throw down the child, she denied the same in Court but she admitted that her husband was suspecting her character. She further admitted that in June 1981 the accused returned from Jordan and thereafter, from Sundi, she was brought to Vatangi. There was some altercation with regard to the character of the accused while he was in Jordan. The day earlier to the incident, the accused had beaten her and she had vomitted and on the next day accused went to stay in the house of Ramchandra. She did not know when he left. There was some altercation with regard to the character of the accused while he was in Jordan. The day earlier to the incident, the accused had beaten her and she had vomitted and on the next day accused went to stay in the house of Ramchandra. She did not know when he left. In cross-examination for the accused, Mangala stated that except for small differences, their life was happy, but she admitted that after his return from Jordan, the accused had told her that he was kept in mental asylum in Jordan, for some time and was always asking her as to whether she came to know something about him when he was in Jordan. For 7 days before the incident, she had noticed a change in the behaviour of her husband and, on the day she was subjected to beating, she had seen him pacing briskly to and fro and that, too, in a strange way. She herself was feelin afraid of the accused; so she had sent the child to the house of the accused's uncle. At night, they used to sleep on the first floor and, once or twice, she found that the accused used to get up in sleep and was talking to himself. She was feeling that the accused was getting intermittent fits of madness. She then stated that her father-in-law and his brother had taken a decision to send the accused to the Miraj Mental Hospital for treatment. When the accused came during the night of the incident, he came shouting and dashed against the door and fell down and members of the family brought him in and tied him with a rope. She herself did not go to him because of fear. 11. Thus the evidence of Baburao and Mangala, as well as the letters at Exs. 33 and 34, and the documents produced by the accused at Ex. 25, go to show that the accused was not leading his normal life prior to the incident He had serious doubts about the character of his wife. He was suspecting the legitimacy of the daughter born to Mangala. In that mental state, he had gone to Jordan. From there also, he was communicating his doubts about her character to his father. The papers at Ex. He was suspecting the legitimacy of the daughter born to Mangala. In that mental state, he had gone to Jordan. From there also, he was communicating his doubts about her character to his father. The papers at Ex. 25 clearly go to show that for some period before his arrival to India, the accused was treated for mental disorder. In fact, that was the cause why he was asked to leave Jordan and go to India. There is clear mention in the medical papers that the accused was suffering from hallucination. The testimony of Mangala also goes to show that just before a week or so, the accused was behaving strangely, muttering to himself, was getting up from sleep and Mangala herself had to send the child to the accused's uncle's place, and she was mortally afraid of the accused. Baburao's testmony also supports the existence of such type-of behaviour. As far as the accused was concerned, prior to the day of the incident, the accused had subjected Mangala to beating and on the day of the incident itself he left his residential house and went to Ramchandra's place. Thus, it is satisfactorily shown that prior to the day of the incident, the accused was not keeping good mental health. He was subjected to fits of hallucinations as well as fits of violence as is spoken to by Baburao. 12. With regard to the behaviour of the accused on the day of the incident, the testimony of Ramchandra and Kashibai shows that, in the early morning he came to the place of Ramchandra. When questioned as to why he had come so early in the morning, the accused said that he should be given some tooth paste known as 'Rakhundi' (burnt ash) and then he would explain. When Rakhundi was given, the accused used it as tooth paste, took tea, took bath, had lunch with Ramchandra himself and went to sleep and got up at 2.00 p.m. After dinner in the evening, he explained to Ramchandra that he had a quarrel in his house and that, for the time being, he would stay with Ramchandra. Baburao, father of the accused, does not speak about any quarrel. On the other hand Ramchandra's testimony shows that Baburao came to his place and asked him as to whether the accused had come to his house and Baburao told him that, after a quarrel. Baburao, father of the accused, does not speak about any quarrel. On the other hand Ramchandra's testimony shows that Baburao came to his place and asked him as to whether the accused had come to his house and Baburao told him that, after a quarrel. Balu had deserted the house and requested Ramchandra to permit him to stay there. Ramchandra further stated that one Balu Naik had also come to sleep in the house and that all of them went to sleep at about 10.00 p.m. We have referred in the earlier part of the judgment to the testimony of Ramchandra and his testimony shows that, during that night, the accused was hearing sounds like 'Khat-Khat' and was getting up from sleep. The testimony of Ramchandra further goes to show that there were no such sounds. It was after the ladies arrived that the accused again got up and complained of his hearing the sound more loudly and, at that time, he picked up a chair and threw it on the staircase, as a result of which the chair broke. After that, the accused entered the room where the females were sleeping and then the daughter of Ramchandra shouted that Balu was behaving irregularly. When Ramchandra and the deceassed Balu Naik entered, they saw that the accused was holding the plank of the broken chair and was looking at the women-folk in an unusual manner. He was staring and Ramchandra thought that he was searching for his wife. When Ramchandra went ahead to snatch the plank, he was given a push by the accused and when Balu Naik went ahead and asked him as to what he was doing in the room of women and wanted to snatch plank, the accused suddenly landed merciless and violent attack on the person of Balu Naik. Thereafter, he ran out of the house. Meanwhile, Ramchandra sent his servant to inform Baburao about the act of the accused. Kashibai's evidence, too, shows that when he entered the room, he was uttering some words like wife and she felt that he was looking for his wife. Her evidence further shows that, even after Balu Naik fell down as a result of the assault, the accused continued hitting him on the head. 13. This evidence of Ramchandra and Kashibai goes to show clearly that the accused was getting fits of hallucinations. Her evidence further shows that, even after Balu Naik fell down as a result of the assault, the accused continued hitting him on the head. 13. This evidence of Ramchandra and Kashibai goes to show clearly that the accused was getting fits of hallucinations. He was hearing sounds when there were none. When for the third time he complained that loud sounds were heard, he picked up a huge chair and threw it on the staircase, an act which cannot be treated but an act clearly indicating mental disorder. Thus, he was in a frenzy to chase the sounds and to start beating towards the sounds. Thereafter, he was seen holding the plank and staring at the women in an unusual way and when Ramchandra went ahead, he was pushed down while Balu Naik was subjected to the senseless violent attack. 14. The evidence is further consistent that immediately after the assault, he appears to have left Ramcbandra's place but it does not appear that he straightway went to his home, for both Ramchandra and Baburao state that, meanwhile, the servant of Ramchandra had already gone and reported to Baburao about the murderous assault. It is, thus, possible to infer that immediately after the assault, he left the place but he must not have straightway gone to his home. He went to his home in a condition which is described by Baburao and Mangala as one of coming and dashing against the door. The whole thing, i.e. the conduct preceding, the conduct during the course of the incident, and the conduct succeeding the event, clearly goes to show that the accused must be under the fit of insanity. At least, the circumstances spoken to by the witnesses show that the act was motiveless, his behaviour totally irrational and further there is evidence that he was hearing sounds when there were no actual sounds at all. 15. We have already referred to the fact that after his arrest, the accused was admitted to the mental hospital and treated for about 5 months. The diagnosis then, as is spoken to by Dr. Kelkar, was schizophrenia. It is well known that a schizophrenic can commit acts of violence and the schizophrenic fits may last for few minutes or few hours. We are thus satisfied that the accused is entitled to rely on S.84, of the I.P.C. 16. The diagnosis then, as is spoken to by Dr. Kelkar, was schizophrenia. It is well known that a schizophrenic can commit acts of violence and the schizophrenic fits may last for few minutes or few hours. We are thus satisfied that the accused is entitled to rely on S.84, of the I.P.C. 16. Holding so, we set aside the judgment of conviction and record the judgment of acquittal. We have already recorded that but for S.84 of the I.P.C., the accused had committed the culpable act of murder of Balu Naik. 17. We have indicated the circumstances which might have caused mental tension of a violent character to the accused and it does appear that the accused's target might have been his own wife and his own child. It is, therefore, not safe to direct the delivery of the accused to any relative or friend. Instead, we direct, as is provided for by S.335(1)(a) of the Cri.P.C, that the accused should be detained in safe custody in Yeravada Central Prison and should be dealt with as is provided for by Chapter XX V of the Cri.P.C. 18. In the result, the appeal of the accused against his conviction and sentence is accepted and he is acquitted of the charge. He is further directed to be dealt with under Chapter XXV of the Cri.P.C. Appeal allowed.