SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 71

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
State of Maharashtra, Appellant
Versus
Sindhi alias Raman, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No, 158 of 1971, D/- 19-2-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate (Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellant: B. R. Agarwala, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 - Section 374 and 465 - Appeal against Order - Order of Conviction - Whether Section 465 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is applicable to proceedings in reference under S. 374 pending before High Court for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to an accused by the Court of Session? - Prisoner expressed a desire to be present at the hearing of his case before High Court - Two Advocates as Senior, were appointed as amicus curiae to defend condemned prisoner in High Court. After interviewing the prisoner in Jail - Advocate reported to High Court that accused was not able to communicate with them intelligently and rationally as he appeared to be insane - Counsel submitted an application to the High Court requesting that accused be got examined by a Board of psychiatrists in order to determine as to whether he was or was not of unsound mind - Application was opposed on behalf of the State inter alia on ground that Section 465 applies only to a trial before a Court of Session - High court rejected this contention, and by its directed the Surgeon General Bombay to constitute a Special Medical Board if three psychiatrists on lines indicated in R. 850 of Bombay Jail Manual, to examine accused and "determine whether the accused is of unsound mind and secondly whether in consequence of his unsoundness of mind, he is incapable of making his defece in proceedings before us – Held, Whether in consequence, he was incapable of making his defence, almost entirely to the medical Board - Such delegation which gives proceeding colour of trial by Doctors is not permissible under law - Reference on this point has been made - On merits also, it is maintained, the findings on aforesaid issues, are wrong, as accused fully knew that he had been tried and sentenced to death for murders in question - Emphasis has been laid on fact that the accused had expressed in writing through the Jailor, his desire to be present in High court at time of the hearing of his case - High Court had by its order referred both the issues in regard to the mental capacity of accused to medical Board, and has given due weight to their opinion - But it is not correct to say that the High Court accepted the ipse dixit of medical experts - These experts gave detailed and cogent reasons in support of their opinion - High Court meticulously considered their evidence and thereafter recorded its own findings on the crucial issues - We have ourselves examined evidence rendered by these two mental experts in High Court - We are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the High Corut in regard to mental capacity of the accused on basis of this evidence is correct - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- The principal question raised in this appeal by special leave is: Whether Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is applicable to proceedings in reference under S. 374 pending before the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to an accused by the Court of Session?

2. It arises out of these circumstances. Sindhi alias Raman was tried, convicted and sentenced to death on 13-8-1969 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay for the double murder of two brothers, Lal Chand Jagannath Yadav and Dullar Jaggi Yadav in Chinchavali Farm at Malad on the night between the 25th and 26th of August, 1968. Sindhi did not appeal against the order of his conviction. But the trial Judge made a reference under S. 374 of the Code to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The reference came up for hearing towards the end of 1969.

3. On 22-10-1969, the prisoner expressed a desire to be present at the hearing of his case before the High Court. Two Advocates, namely Shri D. H. Bane with Shri Mengde as the Senior, were appointed as amicus curiae to defend the condemned prisoner in the High Court. After interviewing the prisoner in Jail on 8-1-1970 and 9-1-1970, the Advocate reported to the High Court that the accused was not able to communicate with them intelligently and rationally as he appeared to be insane. Counsel submitted an application to the High Court requesting that the accused be got examined by a Board of psychiatrists in order to determine as to whether he was or was not of unsound mind. The application was opposed on behalf of the State inter alia on the ground that Section 465 applies only to a trial before a Court of Session. The High court rejected this contention, and by its under, dated, 14th January 70 directed the Surgeon General Bombay to constitute a Special Medical Board if three psychiatrists on the lines indicated in R. 850 of the Bombay Jail Manual, to examine the accused and "determine whether the accused is of unsound mind and secondly whether in consequence of his unsoundness of mind, he is incapable of making his defece in the proceedings before us". The Board was accordingly constituted. The Board deputed Dr. Balakrishna Laxman Chandorkar, Superintendent of the Mental Hospital to interview with the accused. Dr. Chandorkar consequently had fourteen interviews with the accused and also examined the latter physically. The accused was sent, under Dr.Chandorkar s directions, to several hospitals for special examinations. Dr. Chandorkar gathered the past history of the accused, also in so far as it was relevant to determine the issue referred to him. The conclusion reached by Dr. Chandorkar, which he reported to the Board on 28-2-1970, was that the accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and was of unsound mind and, in consequence, he was incapable of making his defence. On receiving the report of Dr. Chandorkar, the Special Medical Board also examined and interviewed the accused on five occasions. Their conclusion, as communicated to the High Court was:

"(1). Sindhi Dalwi alias Raman Raghav (Prisoner) is of unsound mind. He is suffering from a psychosis called chronic paranoid schizophrenia or paraphrenia, the latter being an old term for chronic paranoid schizophrenia plus auditory hallucinations. He is dangerous to the society and hence certifiably insane.

(2) Shidhi knew the nature of the act i.e. he knew that he was killing human beings.

(3) He did know that what he did was wrong and contrary to the law of the land but he firmly believed that what he was doing was right and in tune with the law of "kanoon" whose law according to him was obligatory for him to follow.

(4) There is such a degree of unsoundness of mind resulting in such a degree of defect of reason that he is incapable of co-operating with and instructing his defence counsel in the conduct of the trial and court proceedings and he is incapable of making his defence in the proce































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top