Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 529 (GAU)

Girin Baruah v. State of Assam

2014-05-16

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY, PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2014
JUDGMENT Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Sivasagar, in Sessions Case No. 54(S-C)/2008, convicting the accused/appellant Girin Baruah (hereinafter referred to as accused person) of offence under Sections 302/436 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine a Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo RI for another 6 months for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and also sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo RI for another 3 months for offence under Section 436 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 20.01.2008 one Kanai Chanda lodged an FIR with Officer-in-Charge, Sonari Police Station, alleging that on 19.01.2008 at about 8.15 P.M., one Girin Baruah put his house on fire and also killed his wife, namely, Rupamoni Burahohain, inside his house. 3. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case and ordered to investigate the case. In due course, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, conducted an inquest on the dead body with the help of Executive Magistrate, sent the same to hospital for postmortem examination, did other needful and on completion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/436 of the IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand trial. 4. When the charge-sheet was so laid before the Magistrate, having jurisdiction over the matter, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offences under Sections 302/436 of the IPC are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, on commitment of the case, transferred the file to the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC for disposal in accordance with law. 5. On receipt of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 436/302 of the IPC against the accused person and the charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Sessions Judge, FTC for disposal in accordance with law. 5. On receipt of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 436/302 of the IPC against the accused person and the charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution had examined altogether 22 witnesses including the informant, the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer of the case. The statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The accused plea was of total denial. He however, declined to adduce any evidence of his own although, he was given an opportunity to do so. 7. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused of offence under Sections 436/302 of the IPC and sentenced him to punishment as stated above. It is that judgment, which has been challenged in the present appeal citing several infirmities in such a judgment. 8. Opening up argument on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Mr. B.N. Deka, has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained since it suffers from several infirmities of serious nature. In that connection, it has been pointed out that the abnormal behavior of the accused person during the time under consideration was found well apparent from the testimonies on record. 9. In that connection, it has also been pointed out that the accused used to alcohol since long before he committed the incident under consideration and alcoholic habit in him reached such a stage that he kept on quarrelling with his wife and people in neighborhood most of the time which reduced such locality to a place as if it were the locality of rowdy and hooligans only. 10. Worse still, even on the day in question, he brutally assaulted his wife presumably to force her to give him some money to enable him to purchase alcohol with such money. Equally importantly, even during the time under consideration as well as during the time which followed the incident in question, the accused behaved quite eccentrically. According to learned counsel for the accused petitioner, these are prolific testimonies of the accused being a man of unsound mind during the time under consideration. 11. Equally importantly, even during the time under consideration as well as during the time which followed the incident in question, the accused behaved quite eccentrically. According to learned counsel for the accused petitioner, these are prolific testimonies of the accused being a man of unsound mind during the time under consideration. 11. He further contends that such insanity was caused by a disease, called "Delirium Tremens" which is result of prolonged alcoholism. Since such a disease interfered with the brain and brain's functioning and it ultimately produced an insanity of the degree and magnitude as contemplated in section 84 of the IPC and as such, instead of convicting and punishing the accused as aforesaid, the learned trial Court ought to have acquitted him on giving him the protection provided under Section 84 of the IPC. 12. On the other hand, Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that though there is evidence on record to conclude that accused was alcoholic for which he kept on quarrelling with his wife and the people in neighborhood and although on the fateful day, he drank heavily and thereafter resorted to quarrelling with his wife, yet, such evidence no way serves to show that he committed the offences under consideration, having suffered from insanity of the degree and magnitude as contemplated in Section 84 of the IPC. 13. He also contends that even if he committed the crime in question, being deprived of cognitive faculty on taking alcohol or alcoholic substance, yet, in view of restriction imposed by section 85 and 86 of the IPC, he cannot plead protection of section 84IPC since there is enormous evidence on record to show that he took alcohol or alcoholic substance on his own. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment of the learned trial Court. 14. Since both the sides have made claims which are diametrically opposite, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence on record and the evidence of Doctor is first taken up for consideration. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the wife of the accused is one Dr. Rajiv Kr. Doral who was examined as PW-20. His evidence is reproduced herein below:- 1. External appearance:- Subject stout. Rigormotis present. Petechial haemorrhage on both conject of the eye. Both hands half limbs. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the wife of the accused is one Dr. Rajiv Kr. Doral who was examined as PW-20. His evidence is reproduced herein below:- 1. External appearance:- Subject stout. Rigormotis present. Petechial haemorrhage on both conject of the eye. Both hands half limbs. Wounds:- One transversely placed ligature marks of the breath 1" on the upper part of the neck with prominent on left side of the neck with no marks of knot. 1) On cut section--under lying tissues of ligature mark are pale and above and below of the mark are achimose. 2) Nail mark on the right side of the face----2" lateral to the angle of mouth. 3) Nail mark on the right side of the neck. 2. Cranim and spinal cord. Stout skull and vertebra are healthy. Membrane and brain-congenial. 3. Thorax:- Pleurae, larynx and treachare--both the lungs and pericardium are congested. Right side of the heart is full of blood and the left side is empty. 4. Abdomen:- Mouth, pharynx and Oesophague are congested. Stomach is empty. Other organs are healthy. 5. Liver, spleen and kidney are congested. Bladder is empty Uterus is normal in sign and shape and it is empty. Above findings are ante mortem in nature. Opinions:- In my opinion, the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Ext-7 is my report. Ext 7(1) is my signature. 15. It is found evident from the evidence of Doctor that the deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. 16. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses who are said to be eye witnesses to the incident in question. They were PW-1, Kanai Janta, PW-4, Bipin Gogoi, PW-5, Sujit Dey, PW-7, Moina Gogoi, PW-8 Sarat Gogoi, PW-9, Prasanta Chakraborty, PW-10, Rakesh Sur, PW-12, Mamoni Gogoi, PW-13, Laloti Bhuyan, PW-14, Lalmani Bhuyan and PW-15, Biswajit Deb. 17. PW-4 appears to be one of the most vital witnesses in the case under consideration. According to him, on 19.01.2008, he along with Baton Keot, Lakhinath Keot, Zuma Hussian and Babul Ali was doing VDP duty near Bhojo Railway Station. At around 8:15 p.m., they saw bright light radiating from the side of Bhojo High School. They immediately came to such place and found the granny of the accused on fire. 18. According to him, on 19.01.2008, he along with Baton Keot, Lakhinath Keot, Zuma Hussian and Babul Ali was doing VDP duty near Bhojo Railway Station. At around 8:15 p.m., they saw bright light radiating from the side of Bhojo High School. They immediately came to such place and found the granny of the accused on fire. 18. It has further been deposed that though they made arrangement to douse the fire, the accused, being armed with lathi, prevented them from doing so saying that it was he who had set his own granny on fire. Soon thereafter, the accused went inside his house and locked the house from inside. In the meantime, the police came there and asked the inmates of the house to open the doors. The accused did not open the door but his elder son who was about seven years at that point of time opened the doors. 19. P.W. 4 has again stated that as the Police entered the house, he also accompanied them. On entering the house, they saw the wife of the accused lying dead on the floor. They also saw the accused hiding himself behind an almirah in his house. Police took the accused from the place of hiding and let him lay on the bed. Police also entrusted someone to keep a watch on him. Though accused was enquired by the police as to why he was behaving so abnormally, he started talking nonsense. 20. Inside his house, according to P.W. 4, police also found young sons of the accused person as well as his maid servant. On the request of police, they guarded the deceased as well as the accused person for the remaining part of the night. Police came to place of occurrence next day in the morning. A Magistrate too accompanied them and conducted an autopsy on the death body. During the course of investigation, police seized some burnt substances as well as a lathi and a knife from such place. 21. According to him, Ext.-4 was the inquest report. Police also seized a sari which was worn by the deceased at the time of the incident in question. Police also seized another sari which was found tied with the tie beam of the house and same was seized on the strength of seizure list Exhibit-6. 21. According to him, Ext.-4 was the inquest report. Police also seized a sari which was worn by the deceased at the time of the incident in question. Police also seized another sari which was found tied with the tie beam of the house and same was seized on the strength of seizure list Exhibit-6. The suggestion that the accused did not utter that he had set his granary on fire was denied by PW-4. 22. PW-5 too has supported the prosecution case saying that on the fateful night the accused was seen making huge hue and cry at the place of occurrence. On arriving at such place, he also saw the accused charging at the people gathered there with a dao in his hand. It is also in his evidence that on the night aforesaid, the accused not only uttered some filthy words but also blamed one Brojen as the person responsible putting his granary on fire. 23. PW-12, Smti Mamoni Gogoi is another witness on whom prosecution places enormous reliance. According to her, the accused is her neighbour. On the fateful day, the accused kept on quarrelling with his wife demanding some money which the deceased received previous day as being her salary since she worked as a teacher during the time under consideration. Same day, at around 2:00 p.m., the accused dragged his wife by her hair and assaulted her too. Soon thereafter the accused came out of his house and deceased too started doing her chores. 24. But at about 7:30 p.m., it is stated by P.W. 4 that the accused came home and started quarrelling with his wife. Little later, they saw the granary of the accused on fire and then she came to the place of occurrence. Many other people also rushed to such place. The accused however warned them not to make any attempt to douse the fire since he, on his own, had put the granary on fire. Sometime later, the accused went to his house and locked it from inside. His two sons, who were in the house, started crying. 25. In the meantime, according to P.W. 12, police and VDP came there and on the request of police, the sons of the accused took steps to open the doors. Later on, she came to know that Rupamani Burhagohain, the wife of the accused, was found dead inside her house. His two sons, who were in the house, started crying. 25. In the meantime, according to P.W. 12, police and VDP came there and on the request of police, the sons of the accused took steps to open the doors. Later on, she came to know that Rupamani Burhagohain, the wife of the accused, was found dead inside her house. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the relationship between her family and the accused person was far from normal since the accused had stolen a duck from their house few days before the incident in question. 26. PW-13, Maloti Bhuyan also deposes that the accused habitually takes alcohol and thereafter started quarrelling with his family members causing enormous nuisance in their locality. According to her, the accused did such kind of activities regularly. Even on the day of incident, he caused huge commotion in their locality after taking alcohol. He even put his granary on fire on the fateful evening which caused huge hulla bulla in their locality. 27. P.W. 13 further stated that on coming out of her house, she also saw accused person shouting at the people at the pitch of his voice asking them not to make any attempt to douse the fire as he himself had put the granary on fire. Sometime later VDP arrived at the place of occurrence followed by police as well who found the accused person inside his house. Later on, she came to know that the wife of the accused was found dead inside her house but he did not go there to witness the same. 28. PW-6 is Smti. Rajbati Teli @ Sahu. According to her, at the time of incident, she was cooking in the house of the accused person. After preparing food for the family members of the accused person, she requested the wife of the accused to take food, she, however, did not take food and went to sleep after taking some regular medications. PW-6 too took food and then went to sleep. 29. It has also been deposed that while she was asleep, she heard hue and cry raised by the accused person asking the deceased to get up. In the meantime, police came and on their request, the elder son of the accused person opened the doors of the house. PW-6 too took food and then went to sleep. 29. It has also been deposed that while she was asleep, she heard hue and cry raised by the accused person asking the deceased to get up. In the meantime, police came and on their request, the elder son of the accused person opened the doors of the house. But she did not know how the wife of the accused got killed in her own house on the eventful night. Since she did not support the prosecution case in a way expected of her, the prosecution declared her hostile. 30. Other PWs, namely, PW-1, PW-7 and PW-8 also support the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-12 and PW-13 on the materials points since they deposed that on the fateful night they saw the granary of the accused on fire and also heard the accused claiming that he himself put his granary on fire. They also claim that when people made an attempt to douse the fire, the accused prevented them from doing so. 31. The evidence of those PWs further reveals that after putting his granary on fire, he went inside his house and closed it from inside which was however opened by someone under the order of the police. Police came to the place of occurrence on being informed of the incident. According to them, when police had the door of the house of the accused opened, they found the accused person there. They also found the maid servant and two young sons of the accused inside the ill fated house. 32. PW-2 and PW-3 are the sons of the deceased. According to them, on the fateful evening, they went to bed quite early and woke up only when the incident in question was over and as such, they did not know how their mother got killed on that night Since they did not support the prosecution case, they, along with PW-9, PW-10, P.W. 11, and PW-15 were declared hostile. 33. However, it is found evident from their testimonies that on the fateful night, they saw the granary of the accused on fire for which police was informed. Being so informed, Police came to the place of occurrence, found the accused and his other family members inside his house which was closed from inside for which police forced the inmates of the house to open the doors. Being so informed, Police came to the place of occurrence, found the accused and his other family members inside his house which was closed from inside for which police forced the inmates of the house to open the doors. Once the doors were opened, they found the wife of the accused laying the dead inside his house. 34. PW-21 Lohit Kr. Saikia is a Judicial Officer and was posted as SDJM, Sonari on 21.01.2008. On that day, in connection with Sonari PS case No. 17/2008, he recorded the statements of Shri Krisna Kamal Barua, Shri Chandan Barua PW-22 and Shri Rajbati Teli in accordance with provision of section 164 Cr. P.C. and he proved such statements as Ext. 2, Ext. 3 and Ext. 8 respectively. 35. Sri. Jogen Bora (PW 22) is the I.O. of the case. PW-22 deposes that on the fateful night, he was working as S.I. attached to Sonari Police station. On that day, Sri. Kanai Chanda, the VDP President of Bhoju village informed the Police over the phone that the granary of one Girin Baruah was set on fire. On the receipt of the information, the O/C made the G.D.E. vide No. 493 dated 19-01-2008 (Ext. 9) and entrusted him to investigate the case. 36. P.W. 22 further deposed that on being so entrusted, he came to the place of occurrence and found the granary of the accused being burnt by fire. He made a search for the owner of the house but he found the owner inside his house which was locked from inside. After much persuasion, the doors of the house of the accused were opened. On entering the house, he found that the accused hiding himself behind almirah. 37. He also deposed that wife of the accused was found lying dead inside her house. Since it was night, he left the deceased and the accused in the custody of VDP. He came to such place next day in the morning. An Executive Magistrate too accompanied him and after his arrival at the place of occurrence, he conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased and in that connection, the Executive Magistrate also prepared a report which he proved as Ext. 4. 38. He came to such place next day in the morning. An Executive Magistrate too accompanied him and after his arrival at the place of occurrence, he conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased and in that connection, the Executive Magistrate also prepared a report which he proved as Ext. 4. 38. A bare perusal of the evidence of PWs--P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 12, and P.W. 13 in particular -- unmistakably demonstrates that on the fateful night, the granary of the accused was burnt by accused himself. There is also copious but convincing evidence to show that the accused had prevented the people who gathered there from dousing off the fire. He rather threatened them with dire consequences if they made any attempt to drench such fire since he proclaimed that it was he who set his own granary on fire. Such evidence clearly establishes that the accused, and none else, had put his granary on fire on the fateful night. 39. It is also clear from the evidence of the PWs that after putting his granary on fire, the accused came to his house, entered there into and closed it from inside which was till then occupied by his wife, two young sons and his female cook. The evidence on record further reveals that the wife of the accused was alive till the time of his making entry into his house. But there is also incontrovertible evidence to show that when the police came to the house of the accused person and forced the inmates of the house to open the doors, the wife of the accused was found dead inside his house. 40. These revelations, coupled with the evidence of Doctor that deceased died of asphyxia on or around 20.01.2008 very firmly establish that it was accused, and none else, who caused the death of his wife inside his house on the eventful evening. No other conclusion is found compatible with the evidence on record. One may note here that the learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously dispute the accused person's committing the offences, he was charged with. 41. No other conclusion is found compatible with the evidence on record. One may note here that the learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously dispute the accused person's committing the offences, he was charged with. 41. He, however, claims that since long before the incident in question, the accused had been suffering from alcoholism, for such prolonged alcoholism, he suffers from a disease, called "Delirium Tremens" and such a disease had caused in him an insanity of the nature as contemplated in section 84 of the IPC. According to learned counsel, the accused committed the crimes when he was suffering from insanity caused by the aforesaid disease. 42. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since he had committed the crimes in question while he had been suffering from insanity, the learned trial court, instead of convicting him of the offences, he was charged with, ought to have acquitted the accused of the offences inasmuch as section 84 IPC, in no uncertain terms, pronounces that nothing is an offence which is committed by a person of unsoundness of mind. 43. The plea, so set up by the accused person, has, however, presented us with some queries for our consideration and also for our decisions thereon. The queries aforesaid are: - (i) whether the accused had been suffering from prolonged alcoholism, if so, (ii) whether such alcoholism caused him to suffer from a disease, called "Delirium Tremens", if so, (iii) whether such disease produced an insanity in the accused person and, if so, (iv) whether such insanity was of that degree which prevented him from knowing what is wrong or contrary to law. 44. Before we could address the above queries, we need to answer some other questions as well since those queries too have huge bearings on the matter under scrutiny. Those questions arose for the reason that though in the present appeal, the accused/appellant has raised the contention that during the relevant time, the appellant had been suffering from unsoundness of mind, yet, he never raised such a plea at any point of time during the trial. 45. Therefore, the question is whether the accused could raise the plea of insanity in appeal if he fails to raise the same during trial provided the evidence on record justifies raising such a plea in appeal. 45. Therefore, the question is whether the accused could raise the plea of insanity in appeal if he fails to raise the same during trial provided the evidence on record justifies raising such a plea in appeal. This question had also come up for consideration in the case of Manglu Kumar vs. State of Assam, reported in 2012 (5) GLT 785. On considering various authorities, this Court answered the above query in affirmative. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:-- 40. The learned PP appearing for the State of Assam, however, thoroughly disputed the claim that the accused was an insane person during under consideration. According to him, the claim of insanity is invented by the accused just to protect him from the misdeeds of unimaginable proportion which he committed on the night of 27.10.2003. He further submits that as the accused did not raise such an important plea any time during trial, now, he cannot be allowed to raise the same before this Court during appeal. 41. Rival claims above require us to decide as to whether it is permissible under the law to raise the plea of insanity which the accused did not raise before the Court below any time during the trial? Some other quarries which have huge relevance to the maters under enquiry and which call for our decisions thereon are (a) whether there is any standard prescribed for determining the claim of plea of insanity raised in a proceeding, if so, what is the standard of such proof and (b) whether there is/are any guideline(s) to ascertain such plea. 42. In so far first question is concerned, we may profitably peruse the decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Gangada vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1975 Crl. L.J. 1445. In Gangada vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it has been held as follows:- "If the accused has a right of private defence, he can raise the plea for the first time in the trial court or in the appeal. He is not precluded from taking such plea at the trial, merely because he omitted to set it out in the committing court. He can certainly show from the prosecution evidence and other materials on record that he acted in the exercise of his right of private defence or person or property." 43. He is not precluded from taking such plea at the trial, merely because he omitted to set it out in the committing court. He can certainly show from the prosecution evidence and other materials on record that he acted in the exercise of his right of private defence or person or property." 43. Similar view has been rendered by a court by a court none other the Apex Court of the country in the case of State of UP vs. Md. Khan reported in AIR 1977 SC 2226 , wherein it was held as follows:- "It is true that applicants in their statement under section 342 Cr. P.C. had not taken the plea of private defence, but necessary basis for that plea had been laid in the cross examination of the prosecution as well as by adducing' defence evidence. It is well settled that even if an accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to the court to consider such plea if the same arises from the material on record." 44. The decisions above, clearly answer the contention from the side of prosecution/respondent that plea of insanity cannot be raised at the stage of appeal if same was not raised by the accused during trial. Quite contrary to it, an accused can raise such a plea even at the stage of appeal or a court of appeal can consider the same, provided, of course, materials on record justify such an exercise. 46. It may be noted here that a person, who raises the plea of insanity as a defence against any criminal charge, needs to prove it. Now, the question is what is the standard of such proof? This question has been considered in a number of cases and it has been held again and again that the accused, who set up such plea, is only to probabilise it which is incidentally the standard fixed for proving plea under the Civil Law. 47. In that connection, we can profitably refer to the decision, rendered in the case of Manglu Kumar (supra). For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:- 45. In so far second query is concerned, it may be stated that such a question has been considered many a times by different High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:- 45. In so far second query is concerned, it may be stated that such a question has been considered many a times by different High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. Without multiplying the decisions rendered on this count, we may very well referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pratap vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1976 SC 966 . In that case, it was held "that the accused person who pleads an exception is entitled to be acquitted if upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole (including the evidence given in support of the plea of the general exception) a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court about the guilt of the accused." 46. In other words, an accused who pleads exception is to probabilise his claim as it has been done in civil case. 48. Owing to peculiarity of the plea of insanity, some other factors too need to be kept in mind while considering a defence based on the plea of insanity. Various High Courts over the years have come up with some very valuable guidelines. In that connection, one may profitably refer to the guidelines rendered on such a matter by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil Sandeep vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1993 Crl. L.J. 2554. Various High Courts over the years have come up with some very valuable guidelines. In that connection, one may profitably refer to the guidelines rendered on such a matter by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil Sandeep vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1993 Crl. L.J. 2554. The relevant part of the judgment above is reproduced below:- (a) every type of insanity is not legal insanity, the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law; (b) The court shall presume the absence of such insanity; (c) the burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused, though it is not as heavy as on the prosecution; (d) the court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when the offence was committed; (e) in reaching such a conclusion, the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed the crime are relevant considerations; and (f) The prosecution in discharging its burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has merely to prove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of law that everyone knows the law and the natural consequences of his act. 49. Orissa High Court too considered said question in the case of Raghu Pradhan vs. State of Orissa reported in 1993 Crl. L.J. 1159 (Orissa) and enumerated some other circumstances, which would help the court in deciding the questions of insanity raised by accused charged with crime(s). Those circumstances are: (a) motive; (b) deliberation and preparation; (c) desire for concealment; (d) conduct after commission of the crime showing consciousness of guilt and effort to avoid detection; (e) offer of excuse of making statements which false; and (f) conduct before, at the time and after commission of offence. 50. This court in Manglu Kumar (supra) had the occasion to consider the conduct of the accused during the time running up to the commission of crime, such conduct when the incident in question was in progress and even thereafter and on considering various relevant factor, this Court came to the conclusion that the conduct of the accused person who set up the plea of insanity as the defence to the charge, brought against him, has huge bearing in ascertaining the plea of insanity. 51. 51. In that connection, the decision rendered in Raghu Pradhan (supra) was also considered. The relevant part of the judgment in Raghu Pradhan (supra) is reproduced below;- "49. On a conjoint reading of the decisions, aforesaid, it would appear that the conduct of an accused who claims the protection of section 84 IPC needs to be considered from various angles and such conduct is to be considered at the stages more than one. They are: (a) pre-crime conduct (b) his conduct during the commission of crime and (c) his post crime conduct as well. In order to know how that accused herein behaved during the periods, aforesaid, we put the evidence on record to meticulous examination". 52. We have already noticed that learned counsel for the appellant arduously contends that prolonged alcoholism in the accused had caused him to suffer from a disease, called "Delirium Tremens". He also claims that the person or persons suffering from such disease may have their cognitive faculty impaired so much so that they may suffer some kind of insanity which may be of such nature as it is contemplated in section 84 IPC. 53. Before we proceed further, we would discuss what "Delirium Tremens" is. According to Medical Jurisprudence, "Delirium Tremens" is the result of prolonged alcoholism and such disease may produce insanity of that degree as it is understood in Section 84 IPC. For ready reference, the relevant part of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence is reproduced below:- "Delirium Tremens This is the most important conditions from a toxicological point of view. It results from long continued action on the brain. Precipitating factors:- (i) Temporary excess in the case of habitual drunkards. (ii) Sudden withdrawal of alcohol. (iii) Shock in chronic alcohols, e.g. following an injury such as fracture of a bone. (iv) Acute infection occurring in chronic alcoholics, e.g. Pneumonia, influenza, etc. Delirium tremens is characterised by: (i) Disorientation as to time and space. (ii) Peculiar kind of delirium of horrors owing to hallucination of sight and hearing. (iii) The patient imagines that insects are crawling under his skin or mice and snakes are crawling on his bed. (iv) Coarse muscular tremors of face, tongue and hands. Restlessness, loss of memory, sense, of terror and insomnia. (ii) Peculiar kind of delirium of horrors owing to hallucination of sight and hearing. (iii) The patient imagines that insects are crawling under his skin or mice and snakes are crawling on his bed. (iv) Coarse muscular tremors of face, tongue and hands. Restlessness, loss of memory, sense, of terror and insomnia. (v) Tendency to commit suicide, homicide or violent assault or to cause damage to property, hence the patient has to be watched closely and carefully day and night". 54. Coming back to the case in hand, we have found that there is copious but undeniable evidence to show that the accused had been an alcoholic person and remained drunk most of the time. Such habit had interfered--not only with his life and life style--but--it also enormously interfered with the lives and living of his other family members since he habitually quarreled with his wife, a school teacher, in order to extract more and more money from her so that he could purchase alcohol with such money to quench his thrust for alcohol. 55. What is worse, he even quarreled with his neighbours so much so that he downgraded the locality, he lives in, to a locality of uncivilised, unruly and rowdy people. All these are prolific testimonies to the fact that during the time of occurrence and even before that, the accused had been suffering from serious alcoholism which gravely interfered with his cognitive faculty putting a huge question mark on his mental soundness during the period running up to incident in question. 56. The conduct of the accused at the time of incident and even thereafter is equally baffling. We have already noticed that on the night in question, the accused himself set his granary on fire and when people, gathered there on seeing the granary of the accused on fire, tried to douse the fire, he even prevented them from dousing such fire proclaiming that since he himself set his own granary on fire, no one should make any attempt to put off such fire. 57. Equally important, after putting his granary on fire, he came to his house, locked it from inside, did not allow anyone to open the doors of his house or allowed any one to come out there-from although during such time, his granary was on full flame. 57. Equally important, after putting his granary on fire, he came to his house, locked it from inside, did not allow anyone to open the doors of his house or allowed any one to come out there-from although during such time, his granary was on full flame. He allowed the occupants of his house to open the doors only when police came there and forced the accused to do so. 58. On entering the house, police found the accused hiding himself behind an Almirah. When police enquired him as to why he resorted to such kind of behaviour on the night in question, he started talking nonsense for which the police forced him to lay down on the bed, perhaps to prevent him from doing more harm to anyone or from causing more mischief to the properties. 59. These are all fluent testimony to the fact that the accused behaved most abnormally, most eccentrically and most strangely during the time of incident and even thereafter which leads to the irresistible conclusion that during the time under consideration, the accused was suffering from insanity of the degree and magnitude as contemplated in Section 84 of IPC. 60. One may note here that though the accused burnt down his granary and although he killed his wife on the night in question, he did not have any irrepressible or compulsive reasons to go for such kind of atrocities. In other words, one would be hard pressed to know the motive of the accused person in committing the incident under consideration. The absence of motive, in turn, speaks loud and clear that the accused did not have requisite mens rea in committing the crime in question. 61. The evidence on record further shows that after committing the crimes, the accused did not try to flee from the scene. Quite contrary to it, he locked himself inside his house allowing his granary to burnt down to ashes and then behave very strangely till the time of police came there and took him in to their custody. 62. Another factor that deserves discussion here is that the accused put his granary on fire at a time when it must have been full of crops since the incident in question occurred just after the harvest season. 62. Another factor that deserves discussion here is that the accused put his granary on fire at a time when it must have been full of crops since the incident in question occurred just after the harvest season. The fact that a good deal of time was required to burnt down the granary only serves to show that granary was quite big and when it was burnt, same was full of crops. 63. As stated above, absence of motive, coupled with the other circumstances, which we have detailed herein before, further fortify our conclusion that during the period running up to incident in question, during the time under consideration and even thereafter, the accused was suffering from serious unsoundness of mind which makes it impossible for him to know what he was doing on the night in question, was wrong or against the law. 64. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the accused/appellant is entitled to benefit of section 84 IPC and hence of conviction of the accused person under Section 436/302 IPC becomes unsustainable in law and the same is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 65. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the judgment of conviction under challenged. 66. As a result, the accused/appellant is acquitted of offences u/s. 302/436 IPC and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case/cases. 67. Before we part with the record, we cannot but observe that an insane person is a threat to the society whatever may be the cause of such insanity. We have also found that the person suffering from Delirium Tremens has always a tendency to commit offences including the offences of arson, suicide and homicide etc. which is why they are required to be kept under observation all the time. 68. In view of materials on record, we are compelled to entertain an apprehension that unless the accused is provided with required treatment and medication, he may commit similar kind of occurrence in future as well. We, therefore, direct the respondent State to provide the accused/appellant the required medical treatment. 69. Since the State has the responsibility to provide compensation to the victim of crimes which is also recognized under section357(A) Cr.P.C., we direct the State to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. We, therefore, direct the respondent State to provide the accused/appellant the required medical treatment. 69. Since the State has the responsibility to provide compensation to the victim of crimes which is also recognized under section357(A) Cr.P.C., we direct the State to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,000,00/- to the legal heir(s) of the deceased (not to the appellant) and same shall be deposited by the State Government with the District Legal Services Authority, Sivasagar, Assam within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 70. On such deposit, the District Legal Services Authority, Sivasagar, Assam shall release the same in favour of the children of the deceased in equal proportion who suffered enormous loss as a result of death of their mother. A copy of this judgment be made available immediately to (1) the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam, (2) the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Assam, Guwahati, and (3) the District Legal Services Authority, Sivasagar for compliance.