Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 182 (GAU)

Khuraijam Somoi Singh v. State of Manipur

1996-08-16

H.K.KUMAR SINGH, P.K.SARKAR

body1996
This is an appeal against the conviction of the accused Shri Khuraijam Somoi Singh under section 302 of the IPC sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life passed by Sri Birendra Kumar Sharma, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur West, Imphal in Sessions Trial Case No.6/91/1/91 dated 20.6.92. 2. Prosecution case is that the accused K. Somoi Singh committed the murder of his step father A. Sarangkhomba Singh of Waikhong Laimanai Village by assaulting the deceased with a Haothang (dao) and axe on the 3rd day of December, 1982 at about 12.40 PM just in the very house of the deceased. The murder was witnessed by the daughter of the deceased (PW1) and the victim succumbed to injuries on the spot. Local people and police rushed to the spot and the accused was arrested alongwith the weapons. A case was registered on the complaint of the PW 1 and the police commenced investigation and on completion thereof, submitted a charge sheet against the accused who in due course was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the doctor and 3 (three) police officers. On behalf of the accused 2 (two) witnesses were examined. Dr. Narendra Singh (PW II) held the post mortem examination on the dead body of A. Sarangkhomba Singh and proved the injuries in consequence of which A. Sarangkhomba Singh had died. PW 1 to PW 7 are the witnesses to prove the murder. The plea taken by the defence was that of insanity. The accused, while under examination stated that he was totally unaward as to what he had done even he could not recollect how the deceased died, he however stated that he assaulted a man whom he saw as tiger. 3. The sole contention raised before us is that the accused was of unsound mind at the time when he went out, picked up the dao and dealt dao blows, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Indeed, nothing is an offence which is done by a person of unsound mind under the circumstances set out above. It is a general exception to the rule contained in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code. Indeed, nothing is an offence which is done by a person of unsound mind under the circumstances set out above. It is a general exception to the rule contained in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code. To bring a case within the ambit of section 84, it is said the burden is on the prisoner. Insanity or unsoundness of mind is an exception to the penal law. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove all the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In a case of homicide as well as offence of causing hurt or grievous hurt the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the requisite intention or knowledge ingrained under section 299,326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. Section 84 Indian Penal Code provides an exception to the general rule contained in the Penal Code where the plea of the accused is unsoundness of mind which incapaciated his faculities to know the nature of his acts or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception attracts section 105 of the Evidence Act, which lays down the burden of proving the existence of the circumstances to bring the case within the said presumption and continue to. presume the absence of the exceptional circumstances. However, section 105 of the Evidence Act must be read along with the definition of the expressions shall presume in section 4 of the Evidence Act and the combined reading of both the sections bring in for that the Court shall record the absence of the exceptional circumstances as proved, unless after considering the matters before it, the Court believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, would act upon the circumstances did exist. The presumption that such circumstances did exist must be put forward by the accused. The material must be sufficient at least to make a reasonable person to believe the existence of the said circumstances probable and to act upon them. The materials may be oral evidence, documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or may stem from the prosecutions evidence. The presumption that such circumstances did exist must be put forward by the accused. The material must be sufficient at least to make a reasonable person to believe the existence of the said circumstances probable and to act upon them. The materials may be oral evidence, documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or may stem from the prosecutions evidence. The accused is to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge to ponder as to whether the accused had the requisite criminal intention described in the section 299 and/or other provisions of the Penal Code. If the Judge has a reasonable doubt he has to acquit the accused for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. We are of the view that the rule of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity are : (a) that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed by the accused that the requisite 'mens rea' and the burden continues from the beginning till the end of the trial(b) that it is rebuttable presumption that the prisoner was not insane when he committed an offence in the sense set forth in section 84 Indian Penal Code, (c) that the accused may rebut the presumption of sanity at the relevant time bringing the case within section 84 IPC by producing oral, documentary, circumstantial and other materials and he may discharge the burden by establishing a reasonable probable case. The accused is not called upon to establish the element of section 84 IPC by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt and (d) that even the accused fails to establish affirmatively or conclusively that he was of unsound m iad and committed the act under the circumstances set out in section 84 but raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards presence of essential ingredients of the offence, which of course includes, 'mens rea', the requisite criminal intention, the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. We are also of the view that section 6 of the IPC is an extra ordinary provision which obligates the Court to consider whether case is covered by any of the exceptions under Chapter IV of the. We are also of the view that section 6 of the IPC is an extra ordinary provision which obligates the Court to consider whether case is covered by any of the exceptions under Chapter IV of the. IPC, section 6 of the IPC, in our I opinion, should read as a proviso to section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. That apart, section 6 of the Code imposes statutory obligation on the Court to consider as to whether the case is covered by exception or not. The view that we have expressed is drawn from the decisions of this Court in Lohit Chandra Das vs. State of Assam, (1986) 1 GLR 299 which is passed on certain decisions of the Apex Court in Dayabhai Chaganbhai vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 , Ratan Lal vs. State of MP, AIR 1971 SC 778 :1971 Crl LJ 654, Abdul Latiff vs. State of Assam, 1981 Crl LJ 1205 and Kumar Sunilal Deb vs. State of Assam, (1981) 1 GLR 120. 4. In this connection, it relevant to mention that the accused after his arrest and till the commencement of trial before the Sessions Judge was undefended and the Magistrate before whom the accused was produced first after the arrest was unaware about the insanity of the accused. Accofdingly, the Magistrate sent the accused to the judicial custody in prison. During the trial before the Sessions Judge While the plea of insanity was raised, the Sessions Judge made an enquiry by taking the evidence of Medical Officer, the Jailor and Assistant Jailor of the prison. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses were taken as CWs 2 and 3 and they were examined on 12.2.91,20.4.91 and 6.5.91 respectively. CW 1, Dr. Eoareflikam Surchandfa Singh is a Specialist in Psychiatry and he has examined the accused on 26.9.90. Dr. L. Surchandra Singh after examining the accused came to the conclusion that the accused was suffering from schizophreniform sychosis. It is further stated by CW 1 that such patient are likely to be aggressive, even violent at the time of illness and the accused will not be in a position to know the consequence of his act or in otherwords what he is doing. It is further stated by CW 1 that such patient are likely to be aggressive, even violent at the time of illness and the accused will not be in a position to know the consequence of his act or in otherwords what he is doing. CW2; Tlibkchom Subaschandra Singh is the Jailor of Sajiwa Jail who stated in his evidence that only lunatic patient were transferred in Sajiwa Jail and the accused was transferred to Sajiwa Jail in 1989 from the Central Jail, Imphal as an UTP. CW 3, M. Shamu Singh, Assistant Jailor, Sajiwa Jail stated in his evidence that the accused was in Sajiwa Jail and thereafter transferred to Central Jail, Imphal. After making the inquiry by taking the evidence of the aforesaid three Court witnesses Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that the accused was not a lunatic during the period of trial and thereafter the Additional Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. 5. The sole point which has been urged before us is that the accused was of unsound mind at the relevant time and on that count he, at the time of doing the act, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is a young man and he had no grudge, illwill or animosity against the deceased. He suddenly picked up a duo and dealt blows on the body of the deceased. There is no evidence from the prosecution witnesses that there was any enmity or illwill of the accused against A. Sarangkhomba Singh. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it further appears that it was a motiveless assault. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence regarding the motive of the murder by the accused. On receipt of the complaint the police went to the spot of occurrence and found the accused with an axe in bin hand roaming near the pond. The accused after commission of the offence did not make any attempt to flee away, instead he was threatening the people that he will strike with the axe. This very conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence, indicates the unsoundness of his mind and we are of the view that such conduct is possible for a man who is not in sound state of mind. This very conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence, indicates the unsoundness of his mind and we are of the view that such conduct is possible for a man who is not in sound state of mind. PWs 4, 5, 6 and 7 has stated in their evidence that at the tune of commission of the offence and prior to that the accused, Somoi Singh, was of unsound mind and he was treated by his deceased father, A. Sarangkhomba Singh. It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Sarongkhomba Singh used to treat the lunatic by adopting premitive methods. PW 6 stated that in the cross examination that immediately before the occurrence, the accused, Somoi Singh was suffering from unsoundness of mind and the deceased Sarongkhomba Singh treated him by adopting premitive methods by applying local harbs. PW 6 further stated that during that time the accused was kept tied with rope as he sometimes became wild and took up sharp weapons and used to run and jump. It is also in the evidence of PW 7 that the deceased, Sarongkhomba Singh was a local physician, and has been engaged in the treatment of lunatic persons. He further stated that at or before the dealt of Sarongkhomba Singh, the accused was a lunatic person and the accused was living with the deceased for the purpose of treatment. Considering the evidence of PWs 4, 5,6 and 7, it is evident that at the time of commission of offence of murder the accused was of unsound mind and he became violent and picked up sharp weapons and began to run and jump. Consequently, it is evident that the time of commission of the offence the accused was of unsound mind. The defence adduced two witnesses to establish that the case falls under section 84IPC. DW 1, Khuraijam Thambou Meetei stated in his evidence that prior to the date of occurrence the accused Somoi Singh have been suffering from mental disorder. His lunacy was in such nature that he was holding deadly weapons attempting to commit murders beyond control. The accused Somoi Singh was taken care by this witnesses, younger brother and during those period the accused was kept with fettering implements. His lunacy was in such nature that he was holding deadly weapons attempting to commit murders beyond control. The accused Somoi Singh was taken care by this witnesses, younger brother and during those period the accused was kept with fettering implements. DW1 further stated that one day the accused escaped from his brother's house and he came to know from the mother of the accused that he has gone to their house and the deceased Sarongkhomba Singh kept him in his house for treatment. DW 1, further stated that on the next day he got the information that the accused Somoi Singh murdered his step father Sarangkhomba Singh. DW 2, Hijam Yaima Singh is the brother of DW 1 who supported the statement of DW 1 in his evidence. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses it appears that the accused was ill for sometime and he noticed signs of insanity. In the instant case we do not get any picture about the mental condition of the accused immediately after the occurrence by any Specialist Psychiatrist because the accused has not been examined after his arrest by a Specialist Medical Officer. Since he was not examined by any physician after his arrest, it is possible that the fact of his insanity was not brought to the notice of the Magistrate. However, it is in the evidence of the Medical Officer who has been examined as C W1 that the accused was suffering from schizophereniform psychosis and it is also in the evidence that after arrest the accused was transferred from Central Jail, Imphal to Sajiwa Jail which is a special jail meant for the lunatics. The accused also received treatment there in the jail. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Medical Officer, and the confinment of the accused in a lunatic jail led us to reach the conclusion that the accused was at all relevant time mentally unsound and at the time of doing the acts he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to law. The fact that a person was suffering from unsoundness of mind can be established by preponderance of probability on the basis of relevant features gleaning from the conduct of the accused, the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, and also by direct evidence-. The fact that a person was suffering from unsoundness of mind can be established by preponderance of probability on the basis of relevant features gleaning from the conduct of the accused, the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, and also by direct evidence-. The accused has rebutted the presumption mentioned in section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act by placing sufficient materials before the Court on the basis of oral, documentary evidence, presumptions, admission and the prosecution evidence. The materials placed before us establish or raise a reasonable doubt in our mind that the accused had not the requisite criminal intention at the relevant time and as such, the case squarely fails under section 84IPC. We hold that in the instant case by preponderance of probability it has been established that the accused was mentally unsound and at the time of the commission of the acts he was incapable of knowing the nature of acts and/or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, and accordingly we set aside conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. However, we direct that the appellant may not be released until the requisite conditions of law are fulfilled. 6. We have acquitted the accused on the ground that at the time at which he was alleged to have committed the offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the acts alleged as constituting the offences and/or that they were wrong or contrary to law, but we record the finding that it was the accused who committed the act. Now, it would be the statutory obligation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur West to follow meticulously the provisions of section 335 of CrPC The learned Judge may direct detention of the accused in safe custody in such manner as he thinks fit or may order-the. accused to be delivered to any relative or friend of the accused on the such terms and conditions as he thinks just and prudent. The accused may be detained in the lunatic asylum, however, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. We direct the learned Sessions Judge to follow the provisions of section 33 8 of the Code carefully and cautiously to protect the interest of the society. The accused may be detained in the lunatic asylum, however, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. We direct the learned Sessions Judge to follow the provisions of section 33 8 of the Code carefully and cautiously to protect the interest of the society. The accused shall not be released from the safe custody until the concerned Civil Surgeon or the Chief Medical Officer or the Commission certified that the appellant is fit to , live in the society and could no longer be a hazard to the society. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall report to the State Government the action taken by him under section 335 (1) of the Code. We draw the attention of the learned Sessions Judge and the authorities to the mandatory provisions contained; in section 338 of 'the Code'. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. Before parting, we keep on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Kh. Nimai Singh, the learned Amicus Curiae who shall be paid remuneration entitled to him as per rules.