Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAI SHANKER (LUNATIC) THROUGH VIJAY SHANKER BROTHER GUARDIAN
Versus
State of Himachal pradesh
Decided on, August 30, 1972
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Sections 464, 173 – Offence of Murder – Appellant was charged of having committed murder of a lady doctor, Dr. Vaidya, at Kulu. – He was arrested on the aforesaid allegation. – His advocate made an application before the Magistrate, Kulu under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – By his order ordered that "the larger interests of Justice require that the accused should be examined for his mental condition and that such an inquiry should not in all fairness and in order to be directly useful, be still further delayed". – Judge directed that the appellant should be produced before the Medical Superintendent, Snowdon Hospital, Simla for his examination by a competent doctor or doctors by keeping him in observation for such time as might be considered necessary. – He further directed that the Superintendent should forward a report of the result of such examination to the committing Magistrate "who will act according to law in the light of such report". – Held, Neither the Sessions Court in revision against the Magistrates committal order, nor the High Court in a further revision against the Sessions Courts order could have held that on the materials before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had held that he had no reason to believe that the appellant was suffering from infirmity which would incapacitate him from making his defence, and was therefore, not bound to hold any inquiry and could therefore proceed with the committal proceedings before him –Perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate is enough to satisfy that the Magistrate had misapprehended the order passed by Beg, C. J. , and as a result of such misapprehension thought that he had been directed, without anything more, to proceed with the committal proceedings. – A fair reading of the order of Beg, C. J. , shows that what he said was that under S. 464 it was for the Magistrate, and not the High Court, at that stage to decide whether there were reasons to believe that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and to proceed with the inquiry, if he came to the conclusion that he had no such reason. – That order did not direct and could not have directed the Magistrate proceedings without first determining whether on the allegations made by the accused, the data produced by him and the conduct and behaviour of the appellant in his Court, the Magistrate had reasons or not to believe that the appellant was suffering from mental infirmity of the kind envisaged by S. 464 – Words "reason to believe" mean a belief which a reasonable person would entertain on facts before him. – That would be the burden which the appellant would be expected to discharge. – That was the proper course for the Magistrate to follow, both in view of the provisions of S. 464 and the orders passed by Beg, C. J. , besides the report of the Superintendent of the Snowdon Hospital that before a definite view could be taken of the mental state of the appellant he would have to be kept under observation in a mental hospital. – High Court was not correct when it held that the Magistrate had held an inquiry, that he had no reason to believe that the appellant was suffering from any unsoundness of mind, and that therefore, he could straightway proceed with the committal proceedings. – Magistrate failed to make such an inquiry which it was incumbent upon him to make at the very threshold, and that having not been done, the committal proceedings, as also his order committing the appellant to the Sessions Court for trial were both vitiated – Appeal Allowed
Judgment-
SHELAT
( 1 ) THE appellant was charged of having committed on 24/04/1970 the murder of a lady doctor, Dr. Vaidya, at Kulu. On 4/05/1970, he was arrested on the aforesaid allegation. On 9/05/1970, his advocate made an application before the Magistrate, Kulu under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The application stated that the advocate had interviewed the appellant in the judicial lock-up where he was detained and found him talking incoherently and showing symptoms of impairment of the cognative faculties of mind and otherwise of an abnormal behaviour. The applicant prayed that he should be removed to the mental hospital at Amritsar for ascertaining whether he was in a position to make his defence. Since there was no response to the said application, a similar application was again addressed to the Magistrate on 3/06/1970. To this application were annexed three medical certificates by Dr. B. N. Sur, Dr. Pathak and Dr. K. P. Singh respectively dated 10/05/1970, 15/05/1970 and May 9, 1970, all the three certifying that even as a medical student the appellant had shown signs suggesting unsoundness of mind. In the meantime the case was transferred to the Court of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur. On 11/09/1970 the appellants advocate once again filed an application for medical check up setting out therein various instances displaying abnormal and strange conduct on the part of the appellant right from his student days, as also during the proceedings in the Court on 31/08/1970 when the appellant, amongst other things, proclaimed that he was Lord Vishnu and the ruler of Delhi. By his order dated 23/09/1970, the Magistrate rejected the application stating that he had no reasons to doubt the appellants sanity and decided to proceed with the committal proceedings. In this order the Magistrate cited an application made by the appellant on 26/07/1970 for remitting to his mother the money seized by the Police from his person at the time of his arrest, as also his replies to the questions put to him if copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were supplied to him under Section 173 of the Code. This was done with a view to show that the appellant understood the proceedings and their nature. Against this order a revision application was filed before the Sessions Judge. That was dismissed by an order dated 30/11/1970. A further revision against that dismissal was then filed before the High Court.
( 2 ) BY his order dated 23/12/1970, Rangarajan, J. , ordered that "the larger interests of Justice require that the accused should be examined for his mental condition and that such an inquiry should not in all fairness and in order to be directly useful, be still further delayed". The learned Judge directed that the appellant should be produced before the Medical Superintendent, Snowdon Hospital, Simla for his examination by a competent doctor or doctors by keeping him in observation for such time as might be considered necessary. He further directed that the Superintendent should forward a report of the result of such examination to the committing Magistrate "who will act according to law in the light of such report".
( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said order, the Superintendent of Snowdon Hospital sent his report dated 7/01/1971 to the Magistrate stating that the appellant had been examined by Dr. V. K. Mudgil, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Himachal Pradesh Medical College and Hospital, who reported that from a mere examination of the appellant in Psychiatric Out Patient Department it was difficult to give an opinion on the appellants mental condition, and therefore, recommended that he should be sent to some mental hospital for observation. To an inquiry by the Magistrate dated 11/01/1971, the Snowdon Hospital authorities replied on 19/01/1971 that the hospital had no provision for admission as in-door Patients and care of alleged lunatice and once again suggested that the appellant should be sent to a mental hosp
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
