Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 162 (GAU)

Tom Lorraince Ngaihawma v. State of Mizoram

2025-01-29

MARLI VANKUNG, NELSON SAILO

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Nelson Sailo, J) Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Joseph L Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. [2.] This is an appeal from Jail filed by the convict/appellant against the Judgment & Order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Judge, Fast Track Court- cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib in Crl. Tr. No. 196/2021 corresponding to S.R No. 8/2021 by which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- with a default clause. [3.] During the course of hearing, the attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that there were materials to show during the trial that the appellant was not mentally stable. Therefore, a requisition was made by the Trial Court for getting him examined by the Medical Board. Although medical examination is said to have been done but the issue of insanity remained inconclusive through the judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court on 22.05.2024 found it fit to pass the following order:- “Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the informant and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State. 2. The appeal is against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Fast Track Court-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolasib in Criminal Trial No. 196/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for 20 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- i/d further R.I for 2 months. 3. At the outset, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, inasmuch as, the appellant is insane. In this regard, she has taken this Court to paragraph No. 32 of the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the learned Trial Court and the Medical Examination Report given by the Medical Board through the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, vide letter dated 15.07.2022. 4. In this regard, she has taken this Court to paragraph No. 32 of the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the learned Trial Court and the Medical Examination Report given by the Medical Board through the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, vide letter dated 15.07.2022. 4. Paragraph No. 32 of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.02.2023 states that without a proper medical document declaring the appellant’s insanity, the learned Trial Court could not make a conclusion that the accused/appellant was mentally unstable. 5. The letter dated 15.07.2022 issued by the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Aizawl and which was addressed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Kolasib is as follows:- “Subj : Medical Examination report – regd. Ref : No.C.13019/1/2K-DJ(K) Dt. 24.06.2022. Kindly refer to your letter number and date mentioned on the subject above, I have the honour to submit herewith the Medical Examination report in consultation with the Psychiatry department. After careful examination and consideration, and in view of the diagnosis, the UTP TL Ngaihawma is having difficulty in decision making and execute functioning, impulsive behaviour with anger issues with mood swings and poor memory and judgment. Hench, for his safety and others, it is suggested not to be released. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.” 6. A perusal of the above letter does not specify as to whether the appellant was suffering from insanity. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that a thorough examination of the appellant needs to be undertaken by a Medical Board to be constituted in Aizawl or Kolasib, inasmuch as, Section 84 of the IPC provides that 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. 8. In view of the fact that the issue of insanity has already been taken up before the learned Trial Court and which has remained inconclusive even till today, the Superintendent, District Jail, Kolasib shall ensure the presence of the appellant before the Medical Board to be constituted, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Medical Board shall specify as to whether the appellant suffers from unsoundness of mind/ insanity. Thereafter, the Medical Board shall specify as to whether the appellant suffers from unsoundness of mind/ insanity. The report of the Medical Board should be submitted to this Court through the learned Addl. PP, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte. List the matter after a month. [4.] Pursuant to the above direction, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has produced the Medical Board examination report of the appellant duly signed by the Chairman and two other members of the Medical Board dated 26.06.2024. The same is abstracted as hereunder:- “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Certified that we, the Medical Board, Civil Hospital, Aizawl having its th sitting on 26 June, 2024, in consultation with Consultant of Psychiatry Department, carefully examined and assessed Tom Lorraince Ngaihawma S/o Khumthanga, Kawnpui, Vengthar was diagnosed with Organic Personality Disorder with Organic Psychosis and Seizure. In the current assessment, he has shown improvement in his seizure and psychotic symptoms, however, impairment in cognitive functioning, partial impairment in memory (remote and recent), occasional disorientation to time and person, still has difficulty in speech, with loose association in the topic and partial impairment in comprehending questions asked. Disturbances in sleep (noctural sleep pattern) and wandering perplexity were also observed. At present, findings suggestive of Organic Personality Disorder with Organic Amnestic Syndrome, not induced by Alcohol and other Psychoactive Substances. Sd/- (Dr. S.T LALRUATFELA) Sd/- (Dr. LALCHHUANKIMA) Sd/- (Dr. CATHERINE NGURBIAKVELI) [5.] The above abstract would go to show that on examination of the appellant, the Board found that the condition of the appellant is suggestive of Organic Personality Disorder with Organic Amnestic Syndrome, not induced by Alcohol and other Psychoactive Substances. Under the circumstance, the question that would arise is as to whether the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged to have been committed by him at the relevant time, since there are no findings by the learned Trial Court in this regard. [6.] Ms. Lalngaihsaki, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that pending such consideration, the appellant may be released on bail in view of the undertaking given by his wife through her affidavit that she will take full responsibility to take due care of the appellant. Mr. [6.] Ms. Lalngaihsaki, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that pending such consideration, the appellant may be released on bail in view of the undertaking given by his wife through her affidavit that she will take full responsibility to take due care of the appellant. Mr. Joseph L Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the appellant may not be released pending re-consideration of the case keeping in view the nature of the allegation said to have been committed by the appellant and also the fact that no difficulty has been expressed on his detention in Jail even during the pendency of the instant appeal. [8.] Upon due consideration, we find that it is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration from the stage of evidence with regard to the mental condition of the appellant in view of the opinion rendered by the constituted Medical Board. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.02.2023 is therefore set aside. Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned Judgment & Order, we are not inclined to direct release of the appellant but leave it open to the Trial Court for consideration in accordance with law should the occasion arise. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavor to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry shall return back the original Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the Trial Court immediately. It is also made clear that we have not expressed anything on merit and that the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter and come to its own independent finding unaffected by any observations that may have been made in this order.