M. VENKATESWARA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a story of a youth who ran amok all of a sudden and went on a killing spree. The appellant Bhura Kharia belongs to kodesara Village in Chatra District, Jharkand state. He studied upto B. A. During the month of October, 2001, he appeared for railway Recruitment Board Examination in chenna. While returning he got down at vijayawada and on his way to Visakhapatnam got down at Rajahmundry, made his appearance on 16-10-2001 at 12. 30 p. m. , on the bund of Godavari near Kumari Talkies where he created panic. He suddenly snatched away a traditional bamboo knife-M. O. 1 from the hands of one Akula rambabu who was making bamboo ladder and hacked him to death. From there he proceeded ahead, attacked another person by name Dasari Narayana Rao and hacked him to death with the same knife. He did not stop there, attacked everybody who came on his way and in the process caused either simple or grievous injuries to the following persons : 1. Konda Phanikumar-P. W. 11 2. Dungala Kumar 3. Vemulapudi Sanyasi Rao 4. Maddi Jagadeesh-P. W. 12 5. Kapavarapu Suryanarayana-P. W. 8 6. Angati Sreenu-P. W. 7 7. Dasari Venkateswara Rao-P. W. 9 8. Gudise Venkateswarlu-P. W. 6 9. Pantla Appalaswamy-P. W. 10 ( 2 ) THUS, the accused killed two persons and caused injuries from simple to grievous to nine persons. Public caught hold of him and beat him. They telephoned to the police. P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are eye-witnesses rushed to the police station where their statements were recorded by the Head Constable, Rajahmundry II-Town police Station-P. W. 20. P. W. 21 Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the place, found the accused in bleeding injuries and took him to hospital for medical treatment. After returning back to the police station, he registered the two statements recorded by p. W. 20 as a case and issued F.. R. P. W. 22, the Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Town investigated into the case. P. Ws. 18, 19 and 23 are the doctors who examined the injured and issued wound certificates. P. W. I8 examined P. Ws. 8, 9 and 10. P. W. 19 examined p. Ws. 6, 7, P. W. 11 and Vemulapudi sanyasi Rao (not examined before Court ). P. Ws. 18, 19 and 23 are the doctors who examined the injured and issued wound certificates. P. W. I8 examined P. Ws. 8, 9 and 10. P. W. 19 examined p. Ws. 6, 7, P. W. 11 and Vemulapudi sanyasi Rao (not examined before Court ). P. W. 23 examined P. W. 12 and Dungala kumar (not examined before Court ). P. Ws. 16 and 17 are the doctors who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of Akula Rambabu and dasari Narayana Rao respectively. All the medical witnesses opined that the injuries would have been caused with M. O. 1-knife which was seized by the Inspector P. W. 22 at the 12th scene of offence. As to the accused attacking the two deceased and nine others there is the evidence of the eye-witnesses p. Ws. 1 to 5 and that of the injured P. Ws. 6 to 12. P. W. 13 is the wife of akula Rambabu, deceased No. 1, while p. W. 14 is the wife of Dasari Narayana rao, deceased No. 2. P. W. 15 is the V. A. O. of Rajahmundry who was present at the time of preparation of the observation report and inquest reports and attested them. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the defence, the medical Officer, Government Headquarters hospital, Rajahmundry was examined as d. W. 1. Two contradictions in the statements of P. Ws. 14 and 11 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were marked as Exs. D. 1 and d. 2. The medical certificate issued by p. W. 19, on examining the accused, was marked as Exs. D. 3 and a true extract of the register maintained by the Medical officer, Central Prison, Rajahmundry as Ex. D. 4. ( 4 ) THE accused faced trial for two charges under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short "ipc"), three charges under Section 324 IPC, four charges under Section 307 IPC and two charges under Section 326 IPC and he was found guilty of all the 11 charges. For the two offences under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. Different punishments were given for the rest of the 9 offences and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. For the two offences under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. Different punishments were given for the rest of the 9 offences and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 5 ) THE defence taken by the accused is that he was of unsound mind when he committed the offences. As the accused, while he was in jail, was found exhibiting unusual behaviour, D. W. 1 the Medical officer of the Central Prison Rajahmundry referred him to the Institute of Mental health, Visakhapatnam on 29-12-2001. The accused was discharged from the said institute on 9-4-2002. He was on medication thereafter also, while in jail. The evidence of D. W. 1 is that there is possibility of the accused suffering from complex partial seizure disorder. Two doctors by name K. Siva Prasad and K. Narasimha Reddi examined the accused in the Government hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam and they issued Ex. P. 22 certificate to the following effect : "during the period of stay in the hospital from 29-12-2001 till date of discharge 9-4-2002, no signs or symptoms of mental illness were found. However keeping in view of the description of the abnormal behaviour during the episode mentioned in referral letter, the possibility of complex partial seizure disorder cannot be ruled out; hence it is advised to continue the required medication to prevent such an episode in future. However keeping in view of the description of the abnormal behaviour during the episode mentioned in referral letter, the possibility of complex partial seizure disorder cannot be ruled out; hence it is advised to continue the required medication to prevent such an episode in future. " ( 6 ) THE trial Court, on the mental state of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence, held that if the accused had previous history of mental disorder that may not be relevant factor in considering the probability of the accused behaving in unsound state of mind at the time of the commission of the offences; that from the conduct of the accused from one scene of offence to another scene of offence, there was no scope to come to the conclusion that he was having mental disorder; that he observed the things carefully before commencing the carnage; that he aimed the knife at the necks of the victims and created terror in the minds of the public and there was no sufficient evidence to show that his family members had been suffering from mental disorder, that the accused had not examined either his family members or the school authorities where he studied as to his insanity, and therefore, came to the opinion that the accused was not in unsound state of mind at the time of commission of the offence. ( 7 ) THIS being appeal preferred by the accused through jail, the State Legal Services authority provided legal service as per the directions of this Court. ( 8 ) DURING the course of hearing of the case, we felt that no opinion was expressed by the doctors who examined the accused in the Government Hospital for mental Care, Visakhapatnam as to the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence and therefore, we summoned both the doctors by name dr. Bhagya Rao and Dr. Siva Prasad of government Hospital for Mental Care, visakhapatnam and examined them. Dr. Bhagya Rao, the Superintendent of the Government Hospital for Mental Care, visakhapatnam, produced the record of the accused maintained in their hospital consisting of hospital referral letters, prescriptions etc. , 45 pages therein are marked as Ex. C. 1 to C. 45. We shall make reference to their evidence at the relevant point of time during the course of this judgment. , 45 pages therein are marked as Ex. C. 1 to C. 45. We shall make reference to their evidence at the relevant point of time during the course of this judgment. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/accused has not attacked the findings arrived at by the trial Court on all the 11 charges framed, but he would contend that the appellant/accused is entitled to benefit under Section 84 IPC, which runs as under : "84. Act of a person of unsound mind : nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. " ( 10 ) THOUGH both sides have not addressed arguments, we feel it incumbent on our part to appreciate, briefly, at least the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the injured; P. Ws. 1 to 5 witnessed the occurrence. P. Ws. 6 to 12 are the injured persons. Two other injured by name Vemulapudi Sanyasi rao and Dungala Kumar were not examined, but this does not make much difference. ( 11 ) P. Ws. 1 and 3 are the wife and husband. They prepare ladders like the deceased No. 1 Akula Rambabu. As per their evidence, the accused stood by the side of Akula Rambabu, who was doing his work with M. O. 1-knife, observed the work, suddenly snatched away the knife from the hands of Akula Rambabu and hacked him to death. Thereafter, the accused went on killing spree. People raised cries and the accused was chased by people, ultimately, near a four-road junction he dropped M. O. 1-knife and tried to board a lorry when people caught hold of him. ( 12 ) P. W. 2 stopped where the commission of the offence took place as his scooter gave trouble. He was getting his scooter repaired by a mechanic. The accused armed with a knife attempted to hack a person coming opposite to him. The accused held a knife with both hands, proceeded coolly on the road and hacked every person coming opposite to him. People raised cries. He identified the accused as the person who went on rampage. ( 13 ) THE house of P. W. 4 is situate near the scene of offence. The accused held a knife with both hands, proceeded coolly on the road and hacked every person coming opposite to him. People raised cries. He identified the accused as the person who went on rampage. ( 13 ) THE house of P. W. 4 is situate near the scene of offence. He is a witness to the killing of Dasari Narayana Rao, deceased No. 2, who is a tea stall owner. The victim was sleeping on the tea stall bench. The accused hacked him to death. ( 14 ) P. W. 5 is working in a lorry transport office. He was standing in front of his office along with P. W. 4, when he heard cries from sand ramp side situate at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from his office. By that time, a person was hacking Akula rambabu. He also witnessed hacking of dasari Narayana Rao, the tea stall person who was sleeping. He identified the culprit as the accused. ( 15 ) P. Ws. 6 to 12 spoke to the accused hacking them with M. O. 1-knife. It is unnecessary to refer to their evidence in detail, suffice to say that the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 12 sails unimpeached. Their evidence gives a graphic picture of the killing spree resorted to by the accused. The accused is a stranger to the place. He was caught red-handed. On receipt of telephonic information about the incident going on, P. W. 21-Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the spot and found the accused being beaten by the public. He found bleeding injuries on the person of the accused. Therefore, he took the accused to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry for medical treatment. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that any of the witnesses had grouse against the accused. There is overflowing evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. The post-mortem examination of the two deceased, the evidence of the injured P. Ws. 6 to 12, and the testimony of the doctors P. Ws. l8, 19 and 23, who examined P. Ws. 6 to 12, and two other injured, who were not examined as witnesses, coupled with the eye-witness account of P. Ws. 1 to 5 would cumulatively go to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. 6 to 12, and the testimony of the doctors P. Ws. l8, 19 and 23, who examined P. Ws. 6 to 12, and two other injured, who were not examined as witnesses, coupled with the eye-witness account of P. Ws. 1 to 5 would cumulatively go to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. There is no need for dilation of the discussion on this point, without hesitation we can confirm the findings of the trial Court. This brings us to the vital question, whether at the time of doing the offence the accused was in an unsound state of mind or was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. In other words, by reason of insanity, the accused should be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law not otherwise. In this behalf reference can be made with profit to the leading case in dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 , where the Apex Court summed up the doctrine of proof in the context of the plea of insanity, as under : "7. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the indian Penal Code : the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case 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. " ( 16 ) BEFORE scanning the evidence in the perspective of the propositions laid down by the Apex Court, let us see the plea of the accused in Section 313 Cr. P. C. examination. He states, "i am not doing well. I am taking treatment. I am mentally suffering with ill health. My family members treat me as mad man and nobody came forward to see me. My elder brother is also having some mental disorder. I have also been suffering with mental disorder since 5 to 6 years. Now and then I used to get unconsciousness due to mental condition and" going away to unknown places. I do not know now and when I came to rajahmundry. I do not know what has happened and where I was taken in rajahmundry. I learnt that I was undergoing treatment at Visakhapatnam Mental Hospital when I was there. Still I am taking medicines for my health. Those medicines are bringing from Visakhapatnam. Please provide treatment. I studied B. A. , I am innocent. " ( 17 ) IT is the family members, friends and the people who came in touch with him during school days or college days, who can speak to the mind set of the accused. Unfortunately, none came forward to speak on behalf of the accused. He hails from a different State. He pathetically pleads that he was treated as a madman by his family members. The crucial evidence is that of Dr. K. Siva Prasad, who issued ex. P. 22-certificate and who is examined by us during the course of hearing of this appeal. Let us see what is stated by him before this Court since it amply reflects and clarifies the state of mind of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. K. Siva Prasad, who issued ex. P. 22-certificate and who is examined by us during the course of hearing of this appeal. Let us see what is stated by him before this Court since it amply reflects and clarifies the state of mind of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. Question by Court : Can you explain the certificate ? Answer by Witness : The patient was admitted in our Hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam , on 29-1-2001 with a referral letter from the Central Prison, Rajahmundry and a letter from the Police Station, Rajahmundry for observation and medical opinion. During the period of the stay of the accused at our hospital from 29-12-2001 till his discharge on 9-4-2002, there were no signs or symptoms of his mental illness. However, the abnormal behaviour that occurred at the time of committing the crime was severe and also fitting into the clinical picture of one of the disorders by name complex partial seizure disorder. This is a condition where a person gets sudden abnormal electrical activity in the brain and behaves abnormally, more often violently. Most often we get this from the history only. In fact, the patient was sent to Government Hospital for neurological evaluation and he was also examined by the neurologist. Electro Encephalogram (EEG) was taken. However, that was within normal limits. It can happen in cases of complex partial seizure disorder. This disorder is likely to recur. Keeping in view of the recurring nature of the disorder, the doctors; who were treating the patient opined that it could be better to put him on preventive medication to prevent such kind of occurrence which may cause harm to himself and to the society at large. Question by Court : If not treated, how often can it recur ? Answer by witness : It varies from individual to individual. It is difficult to say that all persons will have the recourse in the mental ability. Period is variable. In some cases, it will occur within days and in some cases, it can occur in years. Question by Court : How long will it last ? Answer by witness : Abnormal behaviour assessed with sudden electrical discharges by the brain can last for few minutes or few hours. Generally, in most of the cases it lasts for few hours. In some cases, it will occur within days and in some cases, it can occur in years. Question by Court : How long will it last ? Answer by witness : Abnormal behaviour assessed with sudden electrical discharges by the brain can last for few minutes or few hours. Generally, in most of the cases it lasts for few hours. Question by Court : Will it be correct to say that a person under complex partial seizure disorder would behave like a mental person ? Answer by witness : Yes Sir. Question by Court : If a person, who suffers this seizure and gets out of it, is examined by you, can you say on the basis of his examination/analysis or EEG that he had suffered such an attack ? Is it possible ? Answer by witness : No Sir, It is not possible. ( 18 ) FROM the above evidence, it is clear that the abnormal behaviour exhibited by the accused while committing the crime was severe and also fitting into the clinical picture of mental disorder called 'complex partial seizure disorder'. It has a tendency to recur. In some cases, it may recur within days and in some other cases it may occur in years. No prognosis is possible as to the period of recurrence. The sudden electrical discharges made by the brain can last for few minutes or few hours and generally, it lasts for few hours. Once the electrical discharges of the brain ceased, the person becomes normal and after becoming normal, it is not possible to say by examination of the patient or analysis or EEG that he had suffered from electrical discharges of brain leading to the complex partial seizure disorder. The evidence of the doctor makes it further clear, viewed against the conduct of the accused, that the accused suffered from complex partial disorder. The accused caused instant death of two persons and injuries to nine. Thus, in all he attached 11 persons who came on his way in an indiscriminate fashion as if he was attacking a group of enemies that came to kill him. Eleven innocent people became the victims of this maniac. There was no motive for him. In fact, he was a stranger to the place. Thus, in all he attached 11 persons who came on his way in an indiscriminate fashion as if he was attacking a group of enemies that came to kill him. Eleven innocent people became the victims of this maniac. There was no motive for him. In fact, he was a stranger to the place. Why he got down at Rajahmundry on his way to home and why he resorted to this manslaughter, sounds inexplicable to an ordinary person. The evidence discloses that the accused began to observe M. O. 1-knife in the hands of the first victim Rambabu, he suddenly snatched it away from his (Rambabu) hands and hacked on his neck. It is mainly the neck of the victims that become his target. It is difficult to judge how the thought process of this maniac operated at the time of the commission of the crime. The behaviour is undoubtedly super-abnormal. Certainly, it was not the behaviour of a man of ordinary prudence. The only explanation for all this behaviour, from the medical point of view, is that he suffered from complex partial seizure disorder. Thus, it is clear the gruesome acts committed by the accused were by reason of unsoundness of the mind at the time of committing of the offence. He was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. The total lack of apparent motive, the manner in which he had observed the knife in the hands of the first victim, how he reacted to it, snatched it away and resorted to killing spree coupled with other facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, legitimately give an inference that the act was done in an insane impulse which lasted for sometime and disappeared thereafter. It is true that many family members suffered on account of this madness. But it is difficult to come to the conclusion by even far-fetched imagination that the accused was conscious of the criminality of his acts at the time of the commission of the offence. A sudden upsurge in the discharge of bioelectricity in his brain, the reasons for which are not known, caused havoc. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is fairly justifiable to come to the conclusion that the accused is entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC. A sudden upsurge in the discharge of bioelectricity in his brain, the reasons for which are not known, caused havoc. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is fairly justifiable to come to the conclusion that the accused is entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC. It is here we call-in-aid the ratio of the supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbai thakkar's case (supra), referred to above, that even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case 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, and held that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. ( 19 ) THE above said conclusion of ours now lands us in the field governed by Section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'cr. P. C'), which runs as under : "person acquitted on such ground to be detained in safe custody : (1) Whenever the finding states that the accused person committed the act alleged, the Magistrate or Court below before whom or which the trial has been held, shall if such act would, but for the incapacity found, have constituted an offence, (a) order such person to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as the Magistrate or Court thinks fit; or (b) order such person to be delivered to any relative or friend of such person. (2) No order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made under clause (a) of sub-section (1) otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the state Government may have made under the indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912) (3) No order for the delivery of the accused to a relative or friend shall be made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) except upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or Court that the person delivered shall- (a) be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person. (b) be produced for the inspection of such officer, and at such times and places, as the State Government may direct. (4) The Magistrate or Court shall report to the State Government the action taken under sub-section (1)". ( 20 ) NO relative has come forward to the rescue of the accused of this case. In fact, the accused pleaded that even his family members had been treating him as a madman and nobody came forward to see him. In view of the fact that he is disowned by his own family members and relatives and in this appeal he is provided legal assistance by the State Legal Services authority as per the directions of this court, dated 26-4-2004, we cannot afford to order this accused to be delivered to his relative or friend. The only recourse possible is to order him to be detained in safe custody. Thus, the accused is bound to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as we think fit. The evidence of Dr. Siva Prasad clearly discloses that the complex partial seizure disorder is a recurring phenomenon. The period of recurrence varies from person to person. There is no evidence before us that the accused is cured of this disorder. It is the province and privilege of the State Government under the provisions of Section 338 Cr. P. C. to discharge the person when he is found to be fit, if the state Government is satisfied that he can be released without danger of doing injury to himself or any other person. It is the province and privilege of the State Government under the provisions of Section 338 Cr. P. C. to discharge the person when he is found to be fit, if the state Government is satisfied that he can be released without danger of doing injury to himself or any other person. Sub-section (2) of Section 335 lays down that no order for detention in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government my make under the Indian Lunancy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912 ). The Indian Lunancy Act, 1912 is no longer in force. It is replaced by the mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987 ). Section 98 of the said Act repeals the Indian lunancy Act, 1912. Therefore, we must look into the provisions of the Mental Health act, 1987. A 'mentally ill prisoner' is defined under Section 2 (m) of the said Act, as under : "mentally ill prisoner" means a mentally ill person for whose detention in, or removal to, a psychiatric hospital, psychiatric nursing home, jail or other place of safe custody, an order referred to in Section 27 has been made. " ( 21 ) SECTION 27 of the said Act runs as under : "admission and detention of mentally ill prisoner :an order under Section 30 of the prisoners Act, 1900 (3 of 1900) or under section 144 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or under Section 145 of the Array act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or under Section 143 or Section 144 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or under Section 330 or Section 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), directing the reception of a mentally ill prisoner into any psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, shall be sufficient authority for the admission of such person in such hospital or, as the case may be, such nursing home or any other psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home to which such person may be lawfully transferred for detention therein. " ( 22 ) IT is clear from the above extracted provisions that an order made under Section 335 Cr. " ( 22 ) IT is clear from the above extracted provisions that an order made under Section 335 Cr. P. C. directing the reception of a mentally ill prisoner into any psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, shall be sufficient authority for the admission of such person in such hospital or, as the case may be, such nursing home or any other psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home to which such person may be lawfully transferred for detention therein. ( 23 ) THE State Mental Health Rules, 1990 made by the Andhra Pradesh State government came into force along with the mental Health Act, 1987 on 1-4-1993. The accused was treated in Government Hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, we feel it fit to direct the accused to be detained in Government Hospital for Mental care, Visakhapatnam. ( 24 ) IN the result, the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 302, 324, 326, 307, 326, 307, 324, 307, 324 and 307 IPC and the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court therefor are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges. Under the provisions of section 335 Cr. PC, the accused is directed to be detained in Government Hospital for mental Care, Visakhapatnam. .