Judgment: Raghuvir, J. 1. The Nizam of Hyderabad during his regime employed number of guards from Egypt and Sudan. Most of the recruited men were from Bidwi tribe. They were employed to guard Treasury Offices in the former State of Hyderabad. They were known and were called “Chawoosh”. The Chawoosh by habits were rustic and aggressive in temperament. Their very presence created terror in local people Often contacted with them were avoided. Even to-day in the city of Hyderabad, the word “Chawoosh” is used in the sense of ignoramus, After the police action in Hyderabad, Chawoosh community were repatriated to parent countries in three ship loads from Bombay. Some who were married here and raised familes were left out. The second or third generation of Chawoosh live to-day in the city of Hyderabad. They are not called “Chawoosh” They are now entwined into warp and woof of the city. They are in fruit business and generally are employed in motor-garages, and in police service. The Chawoosh wore in the past Jambia (dagger) as part of their dress more as an insignia to show they belong to Bidwi tribe. Jambia used to indicate identity and perhaps also as a weapon to protect the person. 2. Md Bin Moshin Chawoosh (Chawoosh) was a resident in a lane near Nampally railway-station. He was a police constable. He was known in Nampally locality as a kind person. People rushed to him for all sorts of errands. He was stabbed to death on 31st January, 1982, by a Jambia found on his person. The assailant was a stranger. He was a foreigner. The stranger came in contact with him not even for 15 hours before the attack. In that brief period the stranger, or as facts would show, received food, shelter and kindness, from Chawoosh. In that sense the facts show more than a tragic case. 3. The above appeal is the case of the assailant who murdered Chawoosh. He was from Srilanka. He had no acquaintance with Chawoosh before 30th January, 1981. The prosecution case, in the criminal appeal, as to the murder of Chawoosh, is not disputed. The plea of the stranger is he was unsound mind. Whether the assailant is an insane person is at issue. Therefore, the usual method of narrating he prosecution case is not adopted in this order. 4. The prosecution case, in the criminal appeal, as to the murder of Chawoosh, is not disputed. The plea of the stranger is he was unsound mind. Whether the assailant is an insane person is at issue. Therefore, the usual method of narrating he prosecution case is not adopted in this order. 4. The assailant, in the first part of this case I will call him a stranger, came to India on 10th October, 1981 for six months training in ‘Urban Development Programme sponsored by “Common Wealth Youth Programme in Asia Pacific Centre”. The Programme centre was at Chandigarh. At Hyderabad, on 10th October, the stranger was found in the company of Arunkumar, a citizen of Fiji Island, another (female) Maggi Gardine from Northern Ireland. The three were lodged in Tourist hotel in Kachiguda. At the instance ofthe brother Arunkumar, who was working in Survey of India at Uppal, the three moved out to a Guest House at Uppal. 5. N.D.Bhaskararao, community Organiser in Urban Community Development Circle No. III, on 29th January, 1982 at about 10 20 a.m. took the trainees including the stranger for filed work to Ranga Nagarin Bolakpur (near Musheerabad of the city) At Bolakpur the behaviour of the stranger was found unusual. When Bhaskararao was explaining schemes, the stranger betrayed peculiar behaviour. He was not observing the lecturer. When the trainees were proceeding towards blocks of houses, he was trying to go in opposite direction When he was stopped by (friend) trainees, he searched pebbles to polt at them. In disgust they left him there. From there he abandoned the training and disappeared in huts of Bolakpur. He was not seen again in the company of trainees. Seshupal Singh, a watchman at the Guest House of Uppal, received a telephone call from a policemen of Nampally police station asking him to inform trainee (friends) the stranger was staying at Nampally traffic police station. This is on the night at 9 or 10 p.m., on 29th January. 6. On the night of 30th January, as traffic constable introduced the stranger to Chawoosh at 10 p.m. seeking help. The stranger said he was hungry and needed assistance in getting refund of money of a railway ticket which was purchased for a journey to Delhi. This is on the night at 9 or 10 p.m., on 29th January. 6. On the night of 30th January, as traffic constable introduced the stranger to Chawoosh at 10 p.m. seeking help. The stranger said he was hungry and needed assistance in getting refund of money of a railway ticket which was purchased for a journey to Delhi. Chawoosh took him to the Nampally railway station where he met Rasheed Hussain, a clerk in the station, who issued the second class ticket for Dhakshina Express from Nampally to Delhi. The stranger said he missed the train. He wanted return of the ticket money. Chawoosh saw the booking-clerk of the ticket money. Chawoosh saw the booking clerk of the station who informed him money cannot be returned for it was barred in time by three hours. This was at ‘O’ hours on 31st January. The stranger and Chawoosh approached Jaffer Baig, a reservation Supervisor at Nampally station in vain, to persuade the head booking-clerk to refund the money., it 04-00 hours in the morning on 31st January. Jaffer Baig asked the stranger and Chawoosh to see him at dawn. This is the first part of the prosecution case. 7. Shaik Chand, a supplier in Mahesh hotel near Nampally station supplied rice, dal, vegetables to stranger and Chawoosh on the night of 30th January. The two consumed food together at the residence of Chawoosh. Chand found them conversing in English. Twenty minutes later, he collected the soiled plates Syed Abbas Hussain stated that at 6 a.m. on 31st January he saw stranger asleep at the left-side window of the police station in the lane leading to the house of Chawoosh. Syed Muktar Hussain, another supplier of Mahesh hotel, supplied tea to Chawoosh and stranger at dawn on 31st January. Later, when he vicited to remove cups he found the two together conversing. He was told by Chawoosh cups were removed by another supplier. 8. Hussain Asrani, a relative of Chawoosh, was staying in Royal Lodge in room No. 115 Azrani received news from Armoor to inform Chawoosh of the death of his uncle a day prior. Azrani thereupon saw Chawoosh at 7.40 a.m. He informed Chawoosh of his uncle's death. At that time he found Chawoosh reading a newspaper at his residence. Nearby there was a stool He found the stranger sitting on stool talking in English to Chawoosh. Azrani thereupon saw Chawoosh at 7.40 a.m. He informed Chawoosh of his uncle's death. At that time he found Chawoosh reading a newspaper at his residence. Nearby there was a stool He found the stranger sitting on stool talking in English to Chawoosh. Azrani gathered from the talk the stranger was a Srilankan. He left them to fetch a taxi for journey at Armoor when he was moving out of room Chawoosh was getting up to dress. No soon, Azrani reached Royal Lodge, he was informed Chawoosh was stabbed to death by the stranger. He rushed to the spot, found him lying in a pool of blood. 9. Syed Mahmood Razvi and his brother Abdul Wali the two are residents of Nampally. They, in the morning heard the cries ‘Mara Mara Bachav’ by Chawoosh. They rushed to the spot. On seeing them Chawoosh told them the stranger had stabbed him with his Jambia. The stranger was standing in the room. Wali attempted to hold the stranger ran out towards taxi stand of Nampally. On the way, he stabbed Moinuddin, Syed Basha, K.M.Padmanabham Md. Anwar Kondaba and M.A. Jabbar, one after another while they came in his way. 10. M.A.Jabbar and Md. Anwar are two autodrivers. On 31st January, 8 p.m. they were having morning tea at Mahesh hotel. They saw the stranger ran towards station with a knife in his hand. A mob was chasing him. Jabbar stated that he rushed out of the hotel and joined the mob. The stranger dealt a blow on him and he moved back, Md. Anwar stated when he heard cues, he rushed to the lane and saw Chawoosh in a pool of blood. He attempted to catch the stranger but he was threatened. He picked a stick and dealt a blow on him. The stranger turned round and attacked him by Jambia on the left-fore arm. 11. Md. Chouse Shareef, with assistance overpowered the stranger, took him to police station. Near the police station the stranger dropped the Jambia (dagger), and disclosed his name is Dharmadas. He was the citizen of a Srilanka. He came to Hyderabed in a training programme. These are the facts which were revealed by witnesses at the Sessions’ trial. 12. On 31st January at 3.30 p.m. autopsy was held. Near the police station the stranger dropped the Jambia (dagger), and disclosed his name is Dharmadas. He was the citizen of a Srilanka. He came to Hyderabed in a training programme. These are the facts which were revealed by witnesses at the Sessions’ trial. 12. On 31st January at 3.30 p.m. autopsy was held. In that, multiple injuries were found on the body of the deceased on the right-side of the chest, right collor bone, on the inner aspect of the left arm, on the right thigh, on the left leg above the ankle, on the left-side of the back of the chest on the seventh leftrib, on the second phalanx of the little finger of the right hand and on the inner aspect of the right thumb in its proximal aspect. 13. The stranger at the trial raised unsuccessfully the defence of unsoundness of mind The trial Judge found the stranger “was caughtared-handed”. He was a foreign national and was “perturbed” and when caught “was afraid as some one would man-handle him or kill him”. Therefore, “assaulted people who came on his way in order to make good his escape”. He found the stranger suffered no mental darangement as not to know the nature of the act. The stranger was convicted on 15th June, 1982 under section 302 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced for life and under section 324, Indian Penal Code, for one year R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal. 14. In this appeal, the Public Prosecutor, disputes the insanity of the stranger. That is the only question which is required to be decided. The stranger hereafter will called appellant. 15. Dr. K.Satyanarayana, Neuro-surgeon of Osmania General Hospital, examined the appellant on 31st January, and found lacerated wounds on right frontal region, left posterior region, right posterior/pariotal region occipital region on the right cheek, minor abrasion on the left knee of the accused. The doctor, however, did not find “nourological deficiency”. Dr. P.T. Chandra Mohan Mouli, Deputy Superintendent, Mental Hospital, observed the stranger between 3rd April and 29th May, and found the appellant suffered paranoid schizophernia and was in a state of “fear complex and anxiety that some body would attack him”. On 5th April, the appellant informed the doctor all Indians were after him. They were trying to kill him. Dr. P.T. Chandra Mohan Mouli, Deputy Superintendent, Mental Hospital, observed the stranger between 3rd April and 29th May, and found the appellant suffered paranoid schizophernia and was in a state of “fear complex and anxiety that some body would attack him”. On 5th April, the appellant informed the doctor all Indians were after him. They were trying to kill him. Arunkumar, who stayed with him at Kachiguda Tourist Hotel “tried to kill him”. 16. The stranger was sent to mental hospital for observation between 2nd October and 9th February. It is seen from the record sheet Exhibit D-7 it is recorded he had a “relapse of paranoid schizophrenia”. He was found “excited, sleepless, not eating at all, socially withdrawn and was not communicative” Dr. M.A.Kareem a a General Practitioner at Distrial Jail, Secunderabad, on 27th March, found the appellant suffering from “depressive psychosis” in Exhibit D-8 and as to general behaviour it was recorded “keeping himself is ”lated“, quiet and not taking food property”. Abdul Rasheed Patel, a Jail-guard, deposed the appellant was not feeling free was nervous, not giving answers to questions. He used to push aside food and starving. He used to fuel paniecky. In the month of March, the stranger had the attack of jaundice (ineffective hepatitis) and was treated at Fevar hospital. It is on this evidence can it be said the appellant is a person of unsound mind? The question is what is insanity? This is not a word with a definite meaning. In law it is not defined for it is a term in medicine. The word insanity to-day in medicine or in law is found in fuzzy uncertainties in almost all countries where Anglo Saxon jurisprudence prevails. I may now in brief refer the history of the subject in some of the countries. 17. Henry Bracton was a jurist in thirteenth century who kept a note of 2,000 cases decided during his time. He was the first person who compiled the ‘Laws & Customs of England in a scientific manner. He was the first jurist who said “kind should be under law”. In his treatise, he indicated the legal consequences of “mental disorder”. 17. Henry Bracton was a jurist in thirteenth century who kept a note of 2,000 cases decided during his time. He was the first person who compiled the ‘Laws & Customs of England in a scientific manner. He was the first jurist who said “kind should be under law”. In his treatise, he indicated the legal consequences of “mental disorder”. Lord Hale in seventeenth century stated “if a person suffered mental disorder” was insane and such a person did not bear “criminal responsibility” Chief Justice Tracy in 1724 in the case of Arnold formulated insanity “a man totally deprived of his understanding and memory and does not know what he is doing no more than an infant than a brute or wild beast”. This is known as ‘wild beast test’. In 1800 King George III was attacked. The assailant was defended by that great advocate Thomas Erskine who suggested at the trial insane persons “need not be reving like a wild beast”. The insane suffer from “delusion”. Alter this case the wild beasts test was disapproved. The delusion theory did not last long. From there we go to what is to-day called MC Naughten rules (1843). 18. The Rules were the result of a trial not at the trial of Daniel Mc. Naughten. Daniel suffered a morbid delusion in mind. He intended to kill Robert Peel, the Prime Minister. Instead, killed Edmund Drumaund, the Secretary of the Prime Minister. This incident was witnessed by Queen Victoria (what next in law P. 48 Denning). She is reported to have said “He must have been guilty. She saw him fire off the pistol.” Daniel was discharged as insane person. There was uprorar in England. All of us know the law is referred in some expletives. Such acquittals heavily contributed for that literature. On the acquittal of Daniel jurists were ridiculed with these expletives. As a result, 15 Law Lords were asked to render opinion to define and show what is insanity. One among them was Lord Maule, J, He excused himself on the ground rendering a opinion “might embarass the administration of criminal justice”. Sir Nicholas Tindal, the Chief Justice, answered the five questions on behalf of all the fourteen. They are as under: “1. One among them was Lord Maule, J, He excused himself on the ground rendering a opinion “might embarass the administration of criminal justice”. Sir Nicholas Tindal, the Chief Justice, answered the five questions on behalf of all the fourteen. They are as under: “1. Qn: What is the law respecting alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with insane delution in respect of one or more particular subjects or persons: as for instance, where at the time of the commission of the alleged crime the accused knew he was acting contrary to law, but did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging tome supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some proposed public benefit? (Answer: The accused nevertheless punishable according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew at the time of committing such crime that he was acting contrary to law). 2. Qn: What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury, where a person alleged to be afflicted with insane delusion respecting one or more particular subjects or persons, is charged with the commission of a crime (murder for example) and insanity is set up as a defence? 3. Qn: In what terms ought the questions to be left to the jury as to the prisoner's state of mind at the time when act was committed? (Answer: In answer to questions 2 and 3, it must be clearly proved the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act the was doing; or if he did know it, that the did not know he was doing what was wrong). 4. Qn: If a person under an in same delusion as to existing facts, commits an offence in consequence there of, is he thereby excused? (Answer: The answer to this question was with a prefactory note that it depends upon the nature of the delusion and two examples were given. If in delusion the accused supposes that some person is taking away his life and he kills in self-defence, he would be exempt from punishment or if the delusion was that the decased had inflicted a serious injury to his character and fortune and he killed him in revenge for such supposed injury, he would be liable to punishment). 5. If in delusion the accused supposes that some person is taking away his life and he kills in self-defence, he would be exempt from punishment or if the delusion was that the decased had inflicted a serious injury to his character and fortune and he killed him in revenge for such supposed injury, he would be liable to punishment). 5. Qn: Can a medical man conversant with the disease of insanity, who never saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who present during the whole trial, and the examination of all the witnesses be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner's mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or his opinion whether the prisoner was conscious at the time of doing the act that he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was labouring under any and what delusion at the time? (Answer: It was answered saying that it is for the jury to decide and this is not a matter of science). 19. It is now said if rules were available at the trial of Daniel he may have been convicted. The answers are known as “McNaughten Rules”. Alas it is seen, expressions like ‘disease of the mind’ ‘insanity’ after these answers, baffled jurists more than before. The history of the rules is different in England, in America and Australia where these rules were implemented. In the disciplines of Medicine and psychology the answers were rejected as outright nonsense. Today it so happens even jurists do not look at them kindly. That is the history of the rules over more than a century. Psychiatrists say, expressions like ‘disease of mind’ and insanity they do not know what they mean and go further and say they do not understand them In England Devlin, J in Regina v. Kemp Regina v. Kemp (1957) 1 Q.B. 399 stated, persons who are “wonky upstairs”, and those who suffered “brutish stupidity” do not suffer a disease of the mind. 20. In two cases one in Attorney General for Northern Ireland v. Grallagher (1963) A.C. 349 expressions like ‘aggressive psychopathy’, conversational therapy’ and ‘relationship therapy’ were elaborated. In Brathy v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) A.C. 386 what is ‘automatism’ a fact of insanity was considered. 21. 20. In two cases one in Attorney General for Northern Ireland v. Grallagher (1963) A.C. 349 expressions like ‘aggressive psychopathy’, conversational therapy’ and ‘relationship therapy’ were elaborated. In Brathy v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) A.C. 386 what is ‘automatism’ a fact of insanity was considered. 21. In Scotland, insanity is not accepted as defence to a crime, instead the doctrine of ‘diminished responsibility’ is grafted in their jurisprudence since 1867. Scotland thus never implemented Mc Naughten Rules. The Courts in England became so vexed with these rules and finally in 1957 they accepted Scottish principle of ‘diminished responsibility’ in The Homicide Act, 1957. In Scotland it is no murder, if the person suffered abnormality of mind A person is found substantially impaired in mind he was convicted for manslaughter on the ground of Adminshed ‘responsibility’ and not for murder. 22. In Australia, Mc Naughten Rules were liberally interpreted in The King v. Porter The King v. Porter (1933) 55 C.L.R. 182. The difference in England and America is elucidated in a speech of Fir Owen Dixon (the Chief Justice) in 1931 printed in Australian Journal at page 255-in Australia the act of an instance person is voluntary, the Crown need not prove. It is for the defence to prove. 23. In America the Anglo Saxon jurisprudence is followed. The Mc Naughten Rules are followed first in American decisions at p. 458 (Commonwealth v. Rogers). The decision was rendered in 1844. Roger was a prisoner who killed warden of the jail. His defence was, he was insane, Shaw, Chief Justice, explained insanity in the following terms: “In order to constitute a crime, a person must have intelligence, and capacity enough to have a criminal, intent and purpose’…..If his intellectual power is obliterated, he is not a responsible moral agent, therefore, not punishable for criminal acts……partial insanity is not sufficient to exempt him from responsibility for criminal acts”. 24. In the last 100 years (more in recent past) in America Mc Naughten Rules were severely criticised. Almost whole of America is now divided on the question of their application. Today McNaughten rules are not followed in 26 States; followed in 22 States. The States of Indaho and Montana abolished (repealed) the defence of insanity and McNaughten rules. In eight States a compromise verdict is adopted “guilty but mentally all” as a compromise formula. Almost whole of America is now divided on the question of their application. Today McNaughten rules are not followed in 26 States; followed in 22 States. The States of Indaho and Montana abolished (repealed) the defence of insanity and McNaughten rules. In eight States a compromise verdict is adopted “guilty but mentally all” as a compromise formula. In 1952 the Federal Bar Association formulated what is called ‘American Model Penal Code’. The word “insanity” in that is defined ‘if at the time of sach conduct as a result of mental disease of defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Thereafter a phrase not quite incompetents came to be coined. Another of area difficulty experienced was to demarcate when the crime was done in old blood or in sudden heat of passion. It is not known how long does it take to change passion to calculation. 25. In understanding insanity the meaning of the word ‘illusion’ often leads to difficult situations. The Scotland ‘illusion’ is a false interpretation of an actual external stimulus. The illustration is given of sounds created by the winds some times is understood as heavenly call. The next tricky word is ‘delusion’. Delusion is a fulse idea like a patient who announces he holds the future of the world in his left hand. The third in this sphere is the word ‘hallucinition’. All the three words are referred in schizophrenia in its application to maniacs, depressive alchoholics, drug addicts and victims of brain drugs. These are the persons amongst whom instance are found 26. In 1954 Judge David Bazelon and eight other Judges suggested to American Criminalogists Durham rules as substitute to McNaughten rules. Most of the states declined to adopt the rules. In 1974 another Federal Panel suggested insanity definition as ‘substantially “confused” person ‘unable to control’. This reform came to tested in a recent case on 30th March, 1981, when Reagon, the President of America, was attacked. The assailant was discharged at the trial as insame person. There was an uproar in the country as it was witnessed in Daniel's case in 1844 in England. We have only referred in brief the history in the Common wealth countries and in America McNaughten Rules were not helpful. Today there is unanimity of opinion that McNaughten rules are “esoteric and obsure”. There was an uproar in the country as it was witnessed in Daniel's case in 1844 in England. We have only referred in brief the history in the Common wealth countries and in America McNaughten Rules were not helpful. Today there is unanimity of opinion that McNaughten rules are “esoteric and obsure”. 27. Coming to psychologists, Professor Alam Dershowitz, a Professor of Harward, speaking of insane, said, insanity is a medical term. Psychologists cannot define. Charles Ford, another American Professor, stated ‘no matter now mentally ill you are, you are mentally responsible to some degree’. He agreed ‘unsoundness’ is a terms in medicine and ‘medicalprofession to make profession to make progress to relieve the law of this responsibility’. Will and Gaylin, another professor of psychology said the law and psychiatry have been an collision course for the last 50 years and for this collision he blames medicine for it. The history of McNaughten Rules is thus enshrined in favour acquittals like that of Arnold, Daniel and in the case of a person who attacked King George III in England. There are many less famour cases and on numerous occasions the rules resulted in unpopular acquittals. 28. In America, Richard Larence, in 1835, a house-painter, shot Andrew Jackson. He was discharged. John Shrank, a saloon keeper shot Presinent Teddy Roozvelt in 1912. He was discharged. Poet Extra Pound an American citizen who, for his profasci broadcasts from Italy, successfully avoided going to trial in 1946 pleading insanity. John W, Hinckely Jr., attacked Ronald Reagen and is discharged on the plea of insanity. He was discharged holding the law cannot punish those who have ‘lost their minds’. 29. The plea of insanity often evoked tensions in criminal law. “The moral aim of punishing for guilt, the pregmatic aim of ensuring public safety and the compassionate aim of rehabilitating offenders”-the three aspects were in turmoil in past and are now in turmoil in all countries. The Supreme Court of America avoided the question in Fisher v. U.S. Fisher v. U.S. 328 U.S. 463 and was satisfied with the simple words like ‘abnormality of mind’. The Briggs Law of Massachusetts, 1921 was referred to insane and suggested after acquittal they should undergo routine examination in Soleshee v. Balcom. Soleshee v. Balcom. The Supreme Court of America avoided the question in Fisher v. U.S. Fisher v. U.S. 328 U.S. 463 and was satisfied with the simple words like ‘abnormality of mind’. The Briggs Law of Massachusetts, 1921 was referred to insane and suggested after acquittal they should undergo routine examination in Soleshee v. Balcom. Soleshee v. Balcom. 339 U.S. 9 The present Chief Justice Burgher of America stated insanity plea should be abolished and the test of ‘diminished capacity’ be substituted which has its origin in Scotland. 30. The difficulty arises because psychologists cannot predict violent behaviour with any degree of certainty and in the field of experience clearer people successfully avoided punishments. One book’ The Fox is Crazy Too’ show the biography of a prisoner Garrot Trapnell who was jailed 20 times and in many of the trials he successfully pleaded insanity. This book was found in the pocket of John W. Hinckley Jr., who attacked President Ronald Reagen on 30th March, 1981, Tracing the history of these cares, Professor Stone stated this ancient conflict (the conflict between law and psychiatry) “is like a conflict of married couple”. He, the law is so formal, rigid and traditional. She, psychiatry is so flighty expansive, and unconventional. His style is objective and judgmental. Her style is subjective and understanding. Finally, Professor Stone, gave the verdict as to marriage in despair saying “what could they have seen in each other”. 31. Lord Maucalay, the author of the Indian Penal Code is presumed to have known Mc.Naughten Rules. He preferred to adopt insane is a person who is incapable of knowing the nature of the act such a person cannot be punished ( section 84 ). The Indian criminologists have not evolved any theory of formulated any principle to detect unsoundness of mind. We have been reading what others have attempted. Nirad Choudhary said, in another context, Indian always wear second-hand clothes. We not come across a principle or formula in any decided case as to how a Court should decide unsoundness of mind. The earliest case in Queen Empress v. Kader Yasyer Shah Queen Empress v. Kader Yasyer Shah I.L.R. (1896) 23 (Cal) 604 at 607. Nirad Choudhary said, in another context, Indian always wear second-hand clothes. We not come across a principle or formula in any decided case as to how a Court should decide unsoundness of mind. The earliest case in Queen Empress v. Kader Yasyer Shah Queen Empress v. Kader Yasyer Shah I.L.R. (1896) 23 (Cal) 604 at 607. The law as to insanity, it was observed, was founded in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords in Mc.Naughten's case in the ‘nonliability’ limits to cases in which insanity affects the “congnitive faculties” or “mischivous propensities” and “homicidal impulses”. That is jumping from on difficult or vague situation to another. In that case, the decisions of Queen Empress v. Lakshman Dagdu Queen Empress v. Lakshman Dagdu (1886) I.L.R. 10 Bom. 512, Queen Empress and Queen Empress v. Razai Mia Queen Empress v. Razai Mia (1895) I.L.R. 22 Cal. 817 were referred.In Damyabha, Chaganbai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat Damyabha, Chaganbai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1965) 2 S.C.J. 531; (1965) MLJ. (Crl.) 773: (1964) 7 S.C.R. 361 :A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563 in relation in insanity, Supreme Court of India considered the burden and burden of proof. It may not be relevant in this case to fineturne the issue of burden. In Bhikari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Bhikari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1966) 2 S.C.J 281:(1985) 3 S.C.R. 194(1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 561:A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1 the question was considered from the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge. It was simply held “the case of the appellant does not fall under exception created bysection 84, Indian Penal Code” and no more. The meaning of the word “unsoundness of mind” was left out. What evidence is required to satisfy the unsoundness of mind is shrounded in uncertainities. 32. In the instant case Dr. K.Satyanarayana, Neuro-Surgeon of Osmania General Hospital, when examined, did not indicate what is neurological deficiency. He excused himself by saying he was not asked to give opinion on that, Dr. P.T.Chandra Mouli, Deputy Superintendent, Mental Hospital, stated the appellant suffered paranoid schizophrenia. Dr. M.A.Kareem observed appellant was keeping “isolated, calur and uncommunicative”. A Jail-guard, Abdul Rasheed Patel deposed the appellant was “not feeling free, was nervous and was not giving answers to questions. He used to push aside food and fell panicky.” 33. P.T.Chandra Mouli, Deputy Superintendent, Mental Hospital, stated the appellant suffered paranoid schizophrenia. Dr. M.A.Kareem observed appellant was keeping “isolated, calur and uncommunicative”. A Jail-guard, Abdul Rasheed Patel deposed the appellant was “not feeling free, was nervous and was not giving answers to questions. He used to push aside food and fell panicky.” 33. It is in this state of record, we thought fit to examine Dr. K.Chandrasekhar, Physhiatrist of the Government Hospital for Mental Diseases. We find in his evidence, the appellant whilst in Srilanka was examined by Dr. K.B.Veerasekhara, He certified on 12th December, 1978 the appellant suffer ‘insanity and mental disorder.‘The certificate is very cryptic and has left much to be desired. The witness revealed a team of doctors observed the appellant between 3rd and 30th August of 1984 and found the appellant was not suffering from any disease. In a searching enquiry, it is brought out from the witness the appellant is required to be examined by physhiatrist at least once in six months. The words ‘insanity’ and ‘mental disorder’, the witness says are one and the same Whether mental dis order will recur again, the witness said, “he may get another attack subsequently in future or he may not get at all.”When the witness was confronted with the opinion of not suffering from any mental illness, the doctor said the certificate speaks more of the mental condition of the person only on 5th September What is paranoid schizophreaia, the witness explained as “the patient harbours a doubt that someone is going to harm, starts hearing voices even when no one is around and secondary to these wo things, he becomes a gitated and restless.” Such a phenomenon, the witness added, is not short-lived. It is from this record we think it proper to find out whether the appellant knew of the act that he perpetrated. This is in some sense avoiding to hold whether he was on 31st January, an insane person or suffered unsoundness of mind. 34. In the instant case, Chawoosh was a person who helped the appellant in the night of 30th January, He took him to Nampally station once at Zero hours, again 4’0 clock to obtain refund of ticket money. The railway-officers speak of these circumstances, referred earlier. On that night, Chawoosh and appellant consumed food together. The next day at dawn, they consumed tea together. The railway-officers speak of these circumstances, referred earlier. On that night, Chawoosh and appellant consumed food together. The next day at dawn, they consumed tea together. When Azrani reported the death of Chawoosh's uncle, the deceased was reading a newspaper conversing with appellant. These circumstances go to show there was absolutely no repture anterior to the incident. It appears, Chawoosh was getting dressed, he put his Jambia on the stool. Seeing Jambia it appears, provoked a series of reverberatrums in the mind of the appellant. What they were, devils alone should know. After the incident the appellant ran to taxi-stand, on the way injured more than six or eight people. A crowd chased him and caught hold of him. The graphic picture in the evidence of series witnesses abundantly show the appellant was not a normal person. His behaviour was not normal. He did not know that he was doing. He became not responsible for his act. We are conscious of gaps in the conclusions that we have arrived. As to these gaps we are sure to have stirred them in this case and as Holt, Chief Justice, has stirred in a different context. Having ‘stirred’, the Chief Justice said’ “I have stirred these points which wiser heads in time may settle”. We hope in near future the issue will be settled with better material to judge the cases. 35. We hold the appellant did not know “the nature of act.” He did not know what he was doing Therefore, he was ‘unsound’ in mind. No normal person kills a person seeing a Jambia on a stool. It is not within the powers of mortals in this area to unravel what happened in the mind of appellant. Judging from the facts what transpired was not normal therefore, and directed the appellant be released on 19th October, 1984 and we give the reasons for the order. 36. One question which is to be considered with reference to the provisions contained in Chapter XXV, Criminal Procedure Code. Judging from the facts what transpired was not normal therefore, and directed the appellant be released on 19th October, 1984 and we give the reasons for the order. 36. One question which is to be considered with reference to the provisions contained in Chapter XXV, Criminal Procedure Code. It speaks of what is to be done if a person in unsound in mind at the enquiry Section 328, Criminal Procedure Code lays down the procedure in cases of a lunatic (This is another word of uncertain meaning.) Section 329 lays the procedure in cases of persons of unsound mind tried before Court, Section 331, Criminal Procedure Code, deals with when a trial is postponed and resumed. How an accused can be delivered for sale-custody to a relative is dealt with in Clause (3) of section 335. These aspects have to be considered in a more appropriate case of civil liberties of a citizen. We would have considered the questions more in detail if the appellant were to be an Indian under the constitution. The appellant is a Srilankan. The Deputy High Commissioner of Srilanka was present in the Court on 19th October, 1984 and offered to take custody of appellant from jail to repatriate him to Srilanka. We therefore, entrusted the appellant to Deputy High Commissioner of Srilanka. 37. It is in this regard a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Luberti's case rendered on 23rd February, 1984 is apposite. We cite the facts to justify the course adopted in this case. 38. Luberti was convisted on 17th January, 1976 by the Rome Assize Court for having killed his mistress by firing several shots at her and he left the apartment leaving the body behind. The psychiatric opinion showed he suffered from a paranoiacsyndrome (sindrome paranoica), Luberti in psychiatric terms was a dangerous person He, was therefore, detained in a religious house in Italy, His complaint in the Court of Human Rights at Strassburg was he should be set from for his liberty was involved. On this aspect three minimum conditions for the release of a dangerous person were laid. He must be reliably shown to be of unsound mind; the mental dis order must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder. On this aspect three minimum conditions for the release of a dangerous person were laid. He must be reliably shown to be of unsound mind; the mental dis order must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder. The above tests justify the direction to repatriate the appellant to parent country. Therefore, he was entrusted to the Deputy High Commissioner of Srilanka.” Crl. Appeal allowed.