Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 79 (PNJ)

Jagdish v. State Of Haryana

2006-01-10

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment/order dated 16.3.1996 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (II) Jind, whereby Jagdish appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 307/326 and 324 IPC. For offence under Section 307, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. For offence under Section 326 IPC to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and then for offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that he was married to Lado 11-12 years prior to the occurrence. On 2.9.1995 at about 8 PM when Lado was in the Chaubara on the first floor of the house and Ranbir Singh and Krishan were sitting in the courtyard of the house, then Jagdish came to the Chaubara armed with a Gandasi. Jagdish asked Lado to go down stairs and as soon as Lado wanted to go down stairs, accused Jagdish opened an attack on her with the Gandasi and gave several blows of gandasi on her eyes, forehead, head, teeth and left forearm. She raised noise Mar-di Mar-di which attracted Randhir Singh and Krishan who came to the Chaubara and rescued Lado from the clutches of the accused, otherwise accused might have caused more injuries. Then Jagdish had run away from the place of occurrence. Lado was got medico- legally examined and then case was registered on 3.9.1994 against the appellant on the statement of Lado. It was investigated. Then accused- appellant was sent for trial. Case was found to be proved against him. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Counsel for the appellant had argued that in this case, both Randhir and Krishan had not supported the prosecution case and even Lado, who had supported the prosecution case in the examination-in-cheif, had stated in the cross-examination that there was no light and she could not identify the accused. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Counsel for the appellant had argued that in this case, both Randhir and Krishan had not supported the prosecution case and even Lado, who had supported the prosecution case in the examination-in-cheif, had stated in the cross-examination that there was no light and she could not identify the accused. It was also argued that accused was suffering from mental disorder and disease of schizophrenia and the offence, if any, was committed when he was not in a sound state of mind. 4. In this case, Lado injured/complainant happens to be wife of the accused. She had many injuries with incised weapon on her face and injury No. 3 was dangerous to life also. When she appeared as PW7, she had stated that accused had opened attack with Gandasi and caused injuries on her face, eyes, forehead, head, teeth, left forearm etc. During her cross-examination, she had stated that there was no light at that time. Occurrence had taken place 3-4 hours after the sun set. Krishan and Randhir were not present. She could not identify the person who caused injuries to her due to darkness. She had further stated that accused Jagdish was not present in the house. Otherwise she could easily identify him even in the dark. She had further stated that 4-5 months prior to the occurrence, accused Jagdish had put himself on fire by spreading kerosene oil due to his mental disorder. Then he was admitted in the Mental Hospital for treatment. He did not recover despite treatment and used to wander in the village. He was unable to watch his interest and to distinguish between good and bad. He could not know the consequences of his doings. 5. Dr. S.C. Godiyal, who is running Akanksha Psychiatry Clinic at Rohtak had stated that this Jagdish was suffering from schizophrenia which was a type of mental disease. That he remained admitted in his nursing home from 3.9.1994 to 15.11.1994. He was given electric shocks on 3.9.1994, 5.9.94, 7.9.94, 11.9.94, 16.9.94 and 18.9.94. That such shocks are given to persons suffering from mental disorder which cannot be controlled with medicines alone. He had stated that mental disorder takes time to develop and it does not develop within an hour. On 2.9.1994, Jagdish must not have been able to distinguish between good and bad or the consequences of his acts. That such shocks are given to persons suffering from mental disorder which cannot be controlled with medicines alone. He had stated that mental disorder takes time to develop and it does not develop within an hour. On 2.9.1994, Jagdish must not have been able to distinguish between good and bad or the consequences of his acts. He was not in a position to take a rational decision. In all probabilities, he was mad or a person of unsound mind on 2.9.1994. 6. On behalf of the respondent-State it was argued that there was no record of any mental disorder prior to the date of occurrence and story of his mental disorder had just been made up. 7. However, I find from the statement of ASI Kali Ram PW15 that even when the case was registered on 3.9.1994, still this accused/appellant could not be apprehended till January, 1995 and whenever he (ASI) was making search, he was having door of the house locked and was learning that accused was admitted in some mental hospital at Rohtak. 8. Here is a case where accused is stated to have caused injuries on the person of his own wife. The independent witnesses have not supported the case and even injured wife when supported the prosecution case in the examination- in-chief had made an effort to help the accused during cross-examination by saying that it was dark and night time and she could not identify the assailant and if it had been Jagdish, she would have identified him even in the darkness. She had also stated that accused had earlier also shown imbalance of mind as he had poured kerosene oil on himself a few months before the occurrence and tried to commit suicide. Thereafter, he remained admitted in mental hospital. He used to wander in the village. He had not recovered despite treatment and did not know the consequences of his doings and was unable to watch his interest or to distinguish between the bad and good. Statement of Dr. S.C. Godiyal DW1 shows that such disease does not develop within an hour. A day earlier to the admission of the accused in his hospital, the accused was unable to distinguish between good and bad or the consequences of his acts. He could not take rational decision. 9. Statement of Dr. S.C. Godiyal DW1 shows that such disease does not develop within an hour. A day earlier to the admission of the accused in his hospital, the accused was unable to distinguish between good and bad or the consequences of his acts. He could not take rational decision. 9. From the proceedings of the trial Court file, it would also appear that during trial at some stages it was pointed out that accused was unable to make his defence. 10. In this case there is statement of Lado complainant (injured) herself that accused appellant had poured kerosene oil on himself and put him on fire and then he was admitted in mental hospital and then he was just wandering and was suffering from mental disorder and could not know about good and bad. It is further corroborated by the statement of Dr. S.C. Godiyal DW1 in whose hospital this accused/appellant had remained admitted on 3.9.1994 and that this disease i.e. Schizophrenia could not develop in one day and even on 2.9.1994, he could not know the consequences of this act. 11. As such, I am of the view that appellant shall be entitled to acquittal in view of the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Under these circumstances, this appeal is accepted. The appellant is acquitted of the charge.