The procedure laid down in Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be followed when there is doubt as to the sanity of the accused.

Narayan, J.

1. This is an appeal by one Chetu Mushar who has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr for the murder of his wife Musammat Sarbatia and sentenced to transportation for life.

2. The short case put forward by the prosecution was that at about 10 a. m. on 15-1-1951, Musammat Sarbatia shouted in her room that she had been killed. She ran out of the room, but fell down in the angan. The accused, however, followed her from the room with a bloodstained tengari in his hand, Rameshwar (P. W. 2) who also lived in the same angan raised an alarm, and then his brother Dhaneshwar (P. W. 1) came to the angan and found Musammat Sarbatia fallen on the ground. The accused was standing there with the tengari in his hand. Rameshwar and Dhaneshwar then Snatched the tengari from his hand and took him to the house of one Bishwanath who directed Rameshwar to bring the chaukidar. The village chaukidar then came to the house of the accused and after having been told about the occurrence went to the thana and lodged the first information. The Sub-Inspector after recording the first information report took up the investigation, and after the investigation was complete, he submitted charge-sheet. against the accused.

3. We find that the trial held by the learned Sessions Judge in this case is completely vitiated, because the allegation as to the unsoundness of mind of this appellant was not investigated, and the provisions of Sec. 465 of the Code were not complied with. It appears from the order-sheet of the learned Sessions Judge that during the cross-examination of the first witness Dhaneshwar Mushar it transpired that the accused was insane and that his insanity had continued uptill the day of the trial. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the trial could not proceed if he was insane even on that day, and he further noted in the order-sheet that after having put certain questions to the accused be was not able "to understand fully as to whether he was insane or sane at present". He, therefore, directed that the accused should be placed under medical observation, and the Civil Surgeon of Monghyr was asked to report about the sanity of the accused. The order of the learned Sessions Judge in this connection runs as follows:

It is, therefore, necessary to have him placed under medical observation with a view to understand his medical condition at present. If the Civil Surgeon, under whose observation the accused will be placed for a week, certifies that he is at present insane, then an inquiry is to be made under Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. The Civil Surgeon will please keep the accused under his observation for a week or more, as he thinks necessary and report whether at present his mental condition is such as to make him unfit to follow the proceedings in this Court. The trial is adjourned to 16-5-1951. P. Ws. and assessors to reattend on that date and they have been so directed.

In the deposition of P. W. 1 who had made a clear statement to the effect that the mind of the accused had been deranged ever since he lost his son about two years back and that he had remained a pagal after his sons death up till the date he was deposing in this case, the learned Sessions Judge has made the following note:

At this stage the Court put a few questions to the accused in order to understand if he can follow the proceeding. Not being satisfied after putting a few questions the accused is put under the observation, of the local Civil Surgeon and the case is adjourned to 16-5-51.

Not only P. W. 1 but also P. W. 2 had deposed before the Court that the accused had been mentally deranged ever since he lost his son. It is this witness who had gone to the chaukidar, and he has stated that he had told the chaukidar as well that the accused was not mentally sound. These are the two witnesses on whom the prosecution mainly relies for the purpose of establishing the charge under Sec.302 against the accused, and