Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 25
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
Vidhya Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 921 of 2002
Decided On : 01/08/2004
K.R. Vishnoi, Public Prosecutor
Pradeep Choudhary, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sec-tion 302 — Accused appellant committed murder of her husband by inflicting kulhari blow on his head and neck — Conviction on basis of evidence of eye witnesses PW1, PW4 and PW 5 — Appeal — Testimony of witnesses could not be rejected merely on ground that they were relatives of deceased — When close relatives were natural witnesses, they could not be regarded as “interested witnesses” though court is to examine such evidence with care and close scrutiny. (Paras 21 to 23)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 84 — Appellant-accused, a young 27 years old lady, committed murder of her husband in the house by inflicting kulhari blow on his head and neck — Defence plea of unsoundness of mind — To establish defence it must be proved that at the time of committing act accused was of unsound mind and by that reason was incapable of knowing nature of act — State of mind before and after the act is relevant though not conclusive — Onus was on accused to prove it but duty of court was to look after defence in the light of evidence — Accused-appellant proved existence of circumstances bringing her case in purview of Section 84 IPC and conviction could not be sustained.
Held: In the present case, the accu-sed appellant has proved the existence of circumstances bringing her case within the purview of Section 84 1PC in the following manner:-
(i) That the FIR Ex.P/14 shows that at the time of committing the murder of deceased, the accused appellant was very much furious and violent and she was controlled with diffi-culty and if she would not have been controlled, she would have also committed murder of her mother-in-law Magni and that fact clearly establishes that at the time of committing the murder of deceased, the accused appellant was labou-ring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mindt as not to know the nature and quality of the act she was doing or, if she did know it, that she did not know she was doing what was wrong or contrary to law.
(ii) That no doubt crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the facts just narrated above clearly establish that the accused appellant was un-soundness of mind when she committed the murder of deceased and further develop-ments also clearly reveal that she was a patient of mental disease “schizophrenia”, which is one of the forms of insanity.
(iii) That before the challan was filed in the Court of Magistrate on 26.4.1996 and after the alleged incident on 18.2.1996, the accused appellant was sent to Mental Hospital, Jaipur for treatment and she remained in the Mental Hospital at Jaipur upto 12.10.1999 and this period clearly shows that her disease was chronic in nature and that is why, she had to face treatment conti-nuously for three years at Mental Hospital, Jaipur.
Not only this, when the accu-sed appellant was produced before the Court on 12.10.1999, the learned trial Judge found that her behaviour was abnor-mal and that is why, she was again sent to the Mental Hos-pital, Jaipur and that fact also reflects that the mental con-dition of the accused appellant was abnormal and she was suffering from unsoundness of mind.
Furthermore, the fact that she remained again in the Mental Hospital, Jaipur for treatment from 12.10.1999 to 20.11.2001 itself reflects that since the date of commission of crime i.e. 18.2.1996 till 20.11.2001, she was suffering from un-soundness of mind and she was a patient of mental disease “schizophrenia” and she was under regular treatment for the mental ailment at Mental Hospital, Jaipur.
(iv) That the facts just narrated above clearly disclosed that the accused appellant was suffe-ring from the mental disease “schizophrenia” and that state existed before and after the occurrence and therefore, in these circumstances, it can easily be concluded that the defence of insanity stands proved.
Thus, having regard to the nature of burden on the accused appellant, we are of the view that the accused appellant has proved the existence of circumstan-ces as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. Apart from this, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsound-ness of mind and thus, she is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. (Para 46)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail aggrieved from the Judgment and order dated 10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 51/2001 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and sentenced her in the following manner:
Name
Vidhya Devi 302 IPC Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months RI.
307 IPC Seven years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI. of ac- Convicted Sentence cused appellant under section awarded to the accused appellant
324 IPC Two years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI.
All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. It may be stated here that this Court vide order dated 12.2003 appointed Shri Pradeep Choudhary, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and he has argued the case on behalf of the accused appellant.
3. It arises in the following circumstances:
On 18.2.1996 at about 3.45 PM, PW1 Debilal lodged an oral report (Ex.P/1) with the Police Station Hamirgarh District Bhilwara before PW1O Bahadur Singh, who was at that time SHO of that Police Station stating inter-alia (hat on 18.2.1996 at about 2.30 PM when he was in his house, he heard the cries of Magni wife of Gulab to the effect “Maro-Maro” and upon this, he rushed towards the house of Man Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and saw that the accused appellant Vidhya Devi wife of deceased Man Singh was having kuihari in her hand and she was giving kulhari blow on the head and neck of deceased, as a result of which blood came out and thereafter, after taking 2-3 hiccups, deceased died on the spot. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 by PW1 Debilal that the kulhari from the hands of the accused appellant was snatched by him and PW5 Smt. Alol with some difficulty and at that time, the accused appellant was very much furious and violent and therefore, she was caught hold with difficulty and her hands were tied after putting them back and thereafter, he rushed towards the police and lodged the report. On motive, it was stated in the report Ex.P/1 that the accused appellant might have domestic quarrel with the deceased and, therefore, for that, she had killed her husband deceased and when her mother-in-law Magni intervened, she was also given kulhari blow by the accused appellant. It was further staled in the report Ex.P/1 that had the accused appellant would have not been controlled, she would have also killed her mother-in-law Magni.
The said report was reduced into writing by PW1O Bahadur Singh in the shape of Ex.P/1 and regular FIR Ex.P/14 was chalked out and investigation was started.
During investigation, Ex.P/2 site plan was got prepared and through arrest memo Ex.P/15 the accused appellant was got arrested on 19.2.1996 and on the information of the accused appellant Ex.P/8, kuihari was got recovered and seized through fard Ex.P/9.
The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW6 Dr. A.K. Mathur and the post mortem report is Ex.P/1OB where it was opined that the deceased died of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and injury to brain.
During investigation, Magni was also got medical examined by PW6 Dr. A.K. Mathur and her injury report is Ex.P/1 1, which shows that she received three simple injuries.
After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323 IPC against the accused appellant in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara on 26.4.1996 and from where, the case was committed to the Court of Session on 3.1999.
On 18.4.2002, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara framed the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC against the accused
