( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the State-appellant against the judgement dated 20-10-93 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, in S. C. 58/87 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C.

( 2 ) SINCE the accused remained absent in spite of the service of notice of this appeal on him, we have appointed Sri Ramadorai, a learned Member of this Bar, as an Amicus Curaie to assist the Court and to argue the appeal on behalf of the respondent-accused.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri A. B. Patil and the learned Amicus Curaie Sri Ramdorai fully and perused the records of the case.

( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is as follows :-That P. W. 1 and the respondent-accused are the native of Huli Hyder village situated in Gangavathi Taluk of Raichur District. About three months prior to the date of the incident, the respondent-accused and P. W. 1 had quarreled when they were working as collies for human construction of a road and P. W. I beat the respondent-accused. On 12-6-86 at about 6 p. m. P. W. 1 had gone to answer the second call of nature on a Government open space near a 'halla' and at that time the respondent-accused came there armed with jambia and assaulted P. W. 1 with jambia causing many injuries. Hearing the shouts and cries of P. W. 1, P. Ws. 2 and 3 came there and on seeing them the accused ran away. P. W. 5 informed about this incident to P. W. 4 - the maternal uncle of P. W. 1 and he came to the spot and shifted him in a jeep to Gangawathi hospital wherein he was admitted and the police came to the hospital in response to the letter sent by the doctor-P. W. I 6 and thereafter P. W. 4 gave his complaint which came to be registered by the police and police started investigation into the case and after completing the investigation in the case of police filed charge-sheet against the respondent-accused.

( 5 ) THE trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused mainly on the ground that the evidence of P. W. 1 cannot be accepted without corroboration by independent witnesses and as P. Ws. 2 and 3 when turned hostile there is no corroboration to the said evidence. We have gone through the judgement of the trial Court. The approach of the trial Court to the law and evidence of the case appears to be perverse. Even the learned Judge has not framed proper points for consideration. The points which had been raised by him for consideration are as follows :-" (1) Whether the death of a human being attempted ? (2) That such death was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the Accused ? (3) That such an act was done with the intention of causing bodily injury and Accused knew that such an injury is likely to cause the death of P. W. 1 ?"instead of framing the points for consideration on the basis of the facts of the prosecution case, the Judge seems to have culled out some words and phrases from Section 307, I. P. C. and framed the points for consideration. Another basic and very serious mistake committed by the Judge is in not following the mandatory provisions of Section 329 of Cr. P. C. The evidence of C. Ws. 1 and 2 recorded by the trial Court goes to show that the respondent-accused was suffering from mental disorder. Even C. W. 1. examined on 15-2-1989 deposes that the accused was examined by him on 13-2-1989 and he appeared to be mentally unsound. Section 329 of Cr. P. C. lays down that at the trial of any person before Magistrate or Court of Session, if it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, in the first instance, try 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