Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 618 (RAJ)

Ratanlal son of Dhumiram v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-22

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This is an unusual case where the lack of application of correct law has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. We shall discuss the reasons thereof in greater details in the later part of this judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that one Surendra Kumar son of Dhumi Ram by caste Chamar, aged 32 years, resident of Khundroth, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar submitted a written report at 10.00 A.M. on 02.09.2008 to S.H.O., Police Station Mandhan, District Alwar alleging that on 01.09.2008, he had gone to Behror for appearing in the examination for appointment on the post of Teacher in Bharti Foundation Institute. It was further stated that he stayed in the house of his relative during night. In the morning around 9.00 A.M. on 02.09.2008, he received a telephonic call from his cousin Suresh that his mother has been murdered by someone. He immediately started for home. On reaching there, he found that her mother was lying dead on the cot in the chowk of their house. She had an injury on her throat. Someone had murdered his mother. On the basis of that written report (Exhibit P-1), FIR No. 160/2008 was registered at Police Station Mandhan, Alwar for offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. The police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against accused-appellant Ratanlal in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Behror, which Court committed the case to the Court Additional Sessions Judge, Behror and thereafter, in pursuance of the order of District and Sessions Judge, Alwar, the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’). Charges for offence under Sections 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act were framed against the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The accused denied allegation during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and alleged false implication. In defence, no evidence was produced. Upon completion of trial, learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 17.12.2009 though acquitted accused-appellant of the charge under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, but convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. In defence, no evidence was produced. Upon completion of trial, learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 17.12.2009 though acquitted accused-appellant of the charge under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, but convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. 3. Mr. Ajay Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the accused-appellant rather than arguing on merits of the case contended that there are enough circumstances to held that the accused-appellant had been having active mental ailment at the time of incident and he was an old patient of Schizophrenia and was hospitalised at Jaipur for quite some time in 1995-96 and was under continuous treatment in Vyas Hospital, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the accused-appellant was not capable to make/arrange his defence due to mental infirmity and in such a situation, the trial court could not have proceeded unless certificate of fitness was obtained by the Court in accordance with law. To prove his contentions, learned counsel referred to statements of various witnesses and documents, which we shall deal with at a later stage in this judgment. 4. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused-appellant has not set up a plea of insanity in his defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this argument cannot be allowed to be developed by him for the first time at the stage of appeal. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Surendra (P.W.1), informant himself has stated that his brother has murdered his mother. Accused Ratanlal used to beat his wife and children and his mother used to intervene to save them. Then, Ratanlal used to scold his mother as to why she was supporting his wife. Ratanlal became mentally sick in 1994-95. He was hospitalised and then became well. Fed up with the attitude of Ratanlal, his wife went to her parents’ house. In cross-examination also, this witness stated that Ratanlal was mentally sick. In response to a query whether or not he was presently mentally sick, this witness denied the same for want of knowledge. Ratanlal became mentally sick in 1994-95. He was hospitalised and then became well. Fed up with the attitude of Ratanlal, his wife went to her parents’ house. In cross-examination also, this witness stated that Ratanlal was mentally sick. In response to a query whether or not he was presently mentally sick, this witness denied the same for want of knowledge. Suman Devi (P.W.2), wife of the informant Surendra has also stated that Ratanlal used to quarrel with his wife without any reason and he would even beat her as also his children. He used to doubt her chastity and on that pretext, he used to beat her. Whenever her mother-in-law intervened to save her, he used to push her aside and tell her that she should not intervene in the affairs of husband and wife. In cross-examination, a suggestion was put to her that Ratanlal was not mentally fit at the time of incident. She, though, denied the same, but in the next sentence stated that appellant once became mad and then admitted that Ratanlal’s wife, his daughter and one son had gone to her parents house 10-15 days before the incident and reason for this was that Ratanlal used to frequently quarrel with her and beat her. On the day of ‘Googa Ashthami’ Ratanlal had given severe beating to his wife. 7. Dhumiram (P.W.3), father of the accused-appellant Ratanlal has also stated that Ratanlal used to beat his wife and whenever his wife (deceased-wife of this witness) would intervene, he would quarrel with her as well. Ratanlal has committed murder of his wife (mother of accused-appellant) by use of ‘katari’ which was found in their house. In cross-examination, he admitted that Ratanlal had been treated for his mental disorder and presently also, he was mad (mentally sick). Sunita, wife of Ratanlal (P.W.5) has stated that her husband was suffering from mental disorder for quite some time and he was undergoing treatment and he went to her parents’ house because her husband used to beat her as also her children. Ratanlal indeed used to doubt her chastity. Whenever, he would beat her, her mother-in-law would intervene to save. 8. Ratanlal indeed used to doubt her chastity. Whenever, he would beat her, her mother-in-law would intervene to save. 8. Gokul Chand Sharma (P.W.16), S.H.O. of Police Station Mandhan, who was investigating officer, has on this aspect stated in the cross-examination that various witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during investigation told him that Ratanlal was mentally sick not only before the incident, but he was also suffering from mental disorder at the time of incident. In response to a pointed query, he admitted that he did not get mental condition of the accused-appellant Ratanlal examined from a Psychiatrist. 9. Even though in the normal circumstances, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer cannot be looked at by the Court during trial or even at the stage of appeal against the judgment of the trial court, but the aforenoted admission of the Investigating Officer has prompted us to look at the record, in which we find statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. elaborately admitting about mental disorder of the accused-appellant not only in the past but also about such ailment being active at the time of incident. We, therefore, in the interest of justice mark statement of Surendra Kumar as Exhibit C-1; statement of Suman Devi as Exhibit C-2; Dhumiram as Exhibit C-3; statement of Suresh Kumar as Exhibit C-4; statement of Sunita Devi as Exhibit C-5; supplementary statement of Sunita Devi dated 22.10.2008 as Exhibit C-6; supplementary statement of Suresh Kumar dated 22.10.2008 as Exhibit C-7; prescription dated 24.10.2008 prescribing about treatment of appellant by Dr. J.S. Sharma, Junior Specialist, Psychiatrist, Government Hospital, Alwar as Exhibit C-8; proceedings drawn on warrant for judicial custody of the appellant as Exhibit C-9 collectively; summary of charge sheet as Exhibit C-10. Aforesaid statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other documents have been got marked by us as exhibits in red ink under the signatures of the Court Master attached to this Court. Aforesaid statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other documents have been got marked by us as exhibits in red ink under the signatures of the Court Master attached to this Court. We have adopted this unusual course by invoking powers of this Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure adherence to the provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sections 328 to 339 Cr.P.C. Statement of Surendra Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit C-1) was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day on which day written report was submitted by him to the police, i.e. 02.09.2008. In so far as relevant to the point in issue, this witness has stated that he had doubt that his brother Ratanlal possibly murdered his mother because he was having acute mental disorder for last fifteen years. He used to frequently beat his wife and children. Fed up with his such attitude, his wife had gone to her parents house about 5-6 days ago. His brother Ratanlal was admitted in mental asylum of Dr. Vyas at Jaipur in 1994-95 where he remained admitted for treatment. Thereafter, again on 2-3 occasions his mental condition deteriorated and he used to take medicines. He had been having acute mental disturbance for last one month and owing to this, he used to doubt character of his wife and beat her. His mother always intervened to save wife of Ratanlal. Due to this reason, Ratanlal was angry with his mother as well. His brother was missing from the house since previous night. 10. Suman Devi, wife of Surendra Kumar in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit C-2) which was also recorded by the investigating officer on 02.09.2008 also similarly stated that elder brother of her husband was mentally disturbed and he was undergoing treatment. He used to frequently beat his wife and due to this reason, she had gone to her parents’ house 5- 6 days ago. Mental condition of the accused-appellant was quite disturbed for last about one month. He used to doubt character of his wife and subject her to beating. Her mother-in-law always intervened to save her from the accused and the accused-appellant was angry with his mother and even threatened to kill her. 11. Mental condition of the accused-appellant was quite disturbed for last about one month. He used to doubt character of his wife and subject her to beating. Her mother-in-law always intervened to save her from the accused and the accused-appellant was angry with his mother and even threatened to kill her. 11. Statement of Dhumiram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit C-3) was also recorded on the same day i.e. 02.09.2008 wherein he stated that his son Ratanlal was presently having mental ailment and active disturbed mind. He used to quarrel with everyone in the family and he had doubted his wife’s character. Fed up from his such attitude, she left for her parents’ house. He has doubt that Ratanlal might have murdered his wife, i.e. mother of the accused-appellant. Suresh Kumar in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit C-4), which was recorded by the investigating officer on 02.09.2008, had stated that mental condition of Ratanlal was quite disturbed in those days and possibly it must be he who murdered his own mother. 12. Sunita Devi wife of Ratan Lal in her initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit C-5) recorded by the Investigating Officer on 02.09.2008 has stated that her husband used to behave like a mad person for last 15 years. He was in between admitted to mental asylum also. He was presently under treatment. However, he had stopped taking medicines for last one month, due to which fact, his mental condition deteriorated. He used to beat her as also her children. Owing to this reason, she went to her parents’ house. Whenever, her husband Ratanlal beat her, her mother-in-law would intervene to save her and her husband on this even threatened her mother-in-law that he would kill her. 13. Supplementary statement of Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Ratan Lal (Exhibit C-6) was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 22.10.2008. In this statement also, she stated that her husband was having madness for a long time. He was undergoing treatment in mental hospital. Her husband used to doubt her character and beat her. She went to her parents’ house. There she received information that her mother-in-law has been murdered. She further stated that mental condition of her husband in those days was not good. 14. Similarly, supplementary statement of Suresh Kumar (Exhibit C-7) was recorded by investigating officer on 22.10.2008. Her husband used to doubt her character and beat her. She went to her parents’ house. There she received information that her mother-in-law has been murdered. She further stated that mental condition of her husband in those days was not good. 14. Similarly, supplementary statement of Suresh Kumar (Exhibit C-7) was recorded by investigating officer on 22.10.2008. In this statement also, he stated that mental condition of Ratanlal was quite disturbed for a long time. He underwent treatment from a psychiatrist, who used to prescribe medicines to him from time to time. Sometimes, his condition would improve but then this witness stated that his mental condition presently was quite good because he was himself taking care of his day to day activities. 15. Prescription slip dated 24.10.2008 (Exhibit C-8) is also available on record of the case wherein the accused-appellant was initially examined for treatment by Medical Officer, PHC, Behror (Alwar), who referred him to a psychiatrist. Then, he was shown to Dr. J.S. Sharma, Junior Specialist (Psychiatric), Government Hospital, Alwar, who had prescribed him certain medicines. His diagnosis of the ailment is indicated on the top of the prescription slip being “depression”. 16. Proceedings of jail custody of the appellant, which were drawn on the case file (Exhibit C-9 collectively) indicates that judicial custody of the accused-appellant was authorised/extended from time to time. He was produced before the trial court time to time and sent back to judicial custody. Order sheet dated 22.07.2009 clearly indicates that Jailor, District Jail, Alwar submitted before the trial court that the accused Ratanlal was sent to Central Jail, Jaipur for treatment, therefore, only J/C warrant was being produced for next date of hearing. The trial court thereupon directed production of the accused before it on 20.08.2009. On that day, Jailor, District Jail, Alwar again requested for extension of judicial custody of the accused-appellant on the premise that the accused had been sent to Central Jail, Jaipur for treatment. The trial court then extended his custody up to 01.09.2009 on which date again Jailor, District Jail, Alwar submitted that accused Ratanlal was presently admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur for treatment and therefore his custody be extended. Thereupon, the trial court drew the proceedings on 01.09.2009 by extending his custody till 23.09.2009 on which date, finally the accused was produced before the trial court and thereafter usual proceedings followed in the case. 17. Thereupon, the trial court drew the proceedings on 01.09.2009 by extending his custody till 23.09.2009 on which date, finally the accused was produced before the trial court and thereafter usual proceedings followed in the case. 17. In view of what we have discussed above, we hardly find any merit in the argument of learned Public Prosecutor that since the accused-appellant has not set up a plea of insanity with reference to Section 84 IPC, therefore, such an argument cannot be allowed to be developed for the first time before this Court. We have demonstrated above that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder of acute nature, which could be schizophrenia or acute depression. Therefore, he was not in a position to understand implication of the court proceedings. The proceedings of the trial court from inception were thus vitiated by non-application of mind inasmuch as non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C., especially Sections 328, 329 and 331. It is surprising to note that the trial court did not care to follow the mandatory provisions contained therein even when many of the prosecution witnesses, including father of accused-appellant, Dhumiram (P.W.3) admitted the fact of mental disorder of the accused at the time of incident. Sunita, wife of Ratanlal (P.W.5) has stated that her husband was suffering from mental disorder and he was undergoing treatment and he went to her parents’ house because her husband used to beat her as also her children. Ratanlal indeed used to doubt her chastity. Whenever he would beat her, her mother-in-law would intervene to save. 18. Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that interferes with a person's ability to think clearly, manage emotions, make decisions and relate to others. It impairs a person's ability to function to their potential when it is not treated. People with schizophrenia are far more likely to harm themselves than be violent toward the public. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home. Therefore, in the facts of present case, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial was vitiated for noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home. Therefore, in the facts of present case, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial was vitiated for noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is surprising to note that despite the fact that almost all the prosecution witnesses disclosed this fact to the investigating officer in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., investigating officer in the summary of charge sheet (Exhibit C-10) has not at all mentioned anything about the fact that accused-appellant was suffering from acute mental disorder. Presiding Officer of the trial court was also negligent in discharging his duties duly and diligently not only by not taking note of the documents filed with the charge sheet but also not attaching any importance to the frequent submissions made by the Jailor, District Jail, Alwar for extension of judicial custody even when the accused-appellant was under treatment in SMS Hospital, Jaipur for a long time. The trial court did not care to follow the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law which had the effect of vitiating the trial. 19. Chapter XXV of the Cr.P.C. contains the provisions with regard to such situation where the accused produced before the court for trial, appears to be of unsound mind or suffering from any mental disease. Section 329 (1) of the Cr.P.C. is relevant provision, which is attracted when at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Sessions, it appears to the Magistrate or Court of Sessions that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or the Court shall, in the first instance, try to find the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court, after considering such medical and other evidence, as may be produced before him or it, is satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case. Sub-section (1A) of Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that if during trial, the Magistrate or Court of Sessions, finds that the accused to be of unsound mind, he or it shall refer such person to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and treatment, and the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, as the case may be, shall report to the Magistrate or Court whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind. According to sub-section (2) of Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. if the court is informed that the person referred to in sub-section (1A) is a person of unsound mind, the court shall further determine whether unsoundness of mind renders the accused incapable of entering defence and if the accused is found so incapable, the Magistrate or Court shall record a finding to that effect and shall examine the record of evidence produced by the prosecution and after hearing the advocate of the accused but without questioning the accused, if the court finds that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, he or it shall, instead of postponing the trial, discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under Section 330 of the Cr.P.C. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 329 Cr.P.C., however, stipulates that if the court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the accused in respect of whom a finding of unsoundness of mind is arrived at, he shall postpone the trial for such period, as in the opinion of the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, is required for the treatment of the accused. Sub-section (3) of Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. however emphatically provides that if the court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and he is incapable of entering defence by reason of mental retardation, he shall not hold the trial and order the accused to be dealt with in accordance with Section 330. 20. Sub-section (3) of Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. however emphatically provides that if the court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and he is incapable of entering defence by reason of mental retardation, he shall not hold the trial and order the accused to be dealt with in accordance with Section 330. 20. Special provision has been engrafted in Section 330 of the Cr.P.C., which provides that whenever a person is found under Section 328 or Section 329, to be incapable of entering defence due to unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, the court shall, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not, order release of such person on bail, provided that unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, which does not mandate in-patient treatment and a friend or relative undertakes to obtain regular out-patient psychiatric treatment from the nearest medical facility and to prevent from doing injury to himself or to any other person. Sub-section (2) of Section 330 of the Cr.P.C., however, provides that if the case is one in which, in the opinion of the court, bail cannot be granted or if an appropriate undertaking is not given, he shall order the accused to be kept in such a place where regular psychiatric treatment can be provided, and shall report the action taken to the State Government. This provision is subject to proviso that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Mental Health Act, 1987. Sub-section (3) of Section 330 of the Cr.P.C. further provides that whenever a person is found under Section 328 or Section 329 to be incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, the court shall, keeping in view the nature of the act committed and the extent of unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, further determine if the release of the accused can be ordered. This action is subject to two provisos, namely, (a) if on the basis of medical opinion or opinion of a specialist, the Court decides to order discharge of the accused, as provided under Section 328 or Section 329, such release may be ordered, if sufficient security is given that the accused shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and (b) if the Court is of opinion that discharge of the accused cannot be ordered, the transfer of the accused to a residential facility for persons of unsound mind or mental retardation may be ordered wherein the accused may be provided care and appropriate education and training. 21. Analysis of the above referred provisions, which provide for special safeguards, would show that it is upon compliance of provisions of Sections 328, 329 and 330 of the Cr.P.C., if the court is later informed that the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind, then and then only it can, in accordance with Section 331 of the Cr.P.C., resume the trial and require the accused to appear or be brought before it. Here also there is a rider in sub-section (2) of Section 331 of the Cr.P.C. that if the accused is released under Section 330 of the Cr.P.C., and the sureties for his appearance produce him to the officer whom the court appoints in this behalf, the certificate of such officer that the accused is capable of making his defence shall be receivable in evidence. 22. Learned trial court having been apprised of the fact that accused-appellant had been undergoing treatment was duty obliged to stop the proceedings and get the accused examined or refer him to a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist as the case may be, who shall report to the Magistrate or Court whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind. 23. The Supreme Court in Dr. Jai Shanker (Lunatic) through Vijay Shanker Brother Guardian Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 3 SCC 83 , dealt with a case where the Magistrate failed to make the inquiry envisaged in Section 464 of the Cr.P.C., 1898 (old Code), as to incapacity of the accused in making his defence, and held that the committal proceedings as also his order committing the appellant to the Sessions Court for trial, were both vitiated. 24. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Pujappa Vs. 24. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Pujappa Vs. The State, 1991 Cri.L.J. 1189, dealt with a case wherein after-medical examination, the trial court did not try the fact of purported unsoundness and incapacity of the accused. It did not record finding as to his mental condition and defending capacity and without fulfilling this initial obligation forthwith resumed and concluded the trial on the main charge itself. The High Court observed that the resulting lacuna was not innocuous but vital and held that this vital lacuna would vitiate the trial. 25. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chittmalla Krishna Murthy Vs. State of A.P., 2001 Cri.L.J. 2457, dealt with a case where a letter was sent by doctor to court showing that accused was not in a position to optimally and meaningfully participate and instruct his counsel for conduct of trial but the trial court without recording any finding thereon whether the accused had recovered from his illness at the time of commencement of trial and able to formulate his defence, proceeded with trial. The High Court held such irregularity to have vitiated the entire trial and set aside the conviction. 26. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that since the trial of the accused-appellant was vitiated, his conviction for offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained in law. In the result, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the trial court is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh medical examination of the accused-appellant from a Medical Board consisting of three expert psychiatrists of the Psychiatric Centre attached to SMS Hospital, Jaipur to determine whether the accused-appellant was capable of making defence during trial or otherwise, and then proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially Sections 329 to 331 thereof, including about his right to be released on bail on fulfillment of the condition envisaged in Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 27. We have come across with several similar cases in the recent past where despite evidence emerging on record about acute mental ailment of the accused, neither the police has invoked relevant provision of law, nor even the courts have paid due regard to the mandate of law. 27. We have come across with several similar cases in the recent past where despite evidence emerging on record about acute mental ailment of the accused, neither the police has invoked relevant provision of law, nor even the courts have paid due regard to the mandate of law. The police in such kind of cases is expected to act with utmost sensitivity. Investigating Officer in the present case despite having been apprised of the acute mental disorder of the accused by number of witnesses, did not point this out in the summary of the charge sheet that was filed before the Court. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to forward a copy of this judgment to Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur for taking appropriate action against the erring police officer and issue necessary instructions in this behalf for future guidance of the police officers. A copy of this judgment be also sent to Director, Rajasthan Police Academy, Jaipur. 28. A copy of this judgment be sent to Registrar General of this Court for being placed on the records of the Presiding Officer(s) of the relevant time, who were posted in the trial court during trial as also when judgment was delivered. Copy of this judgment be also sent to Director, Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, Jodhpur for the purpose of apprising judicial officers about the importance of application of mandatory provisions with regard to defence of insanity available to an accused.