Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. UPADHYAY & RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Saraswati Rani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1072 of 2005
Decided On : 17-03-2016
Section 84 - Mental Disorder - Indian Penal Code - [Section 302, Section 84] - The court examined the applicability of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that nothing is an offence if the accused, at the time of doing the act, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The court found that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, as evidenced by medical records and the report from RINPAS. The court also emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 is the time when the offence is committed. The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, directing the release of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing her son. The appellant, suffering from schizophrenia, claimed the benefit of exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, stating that she was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law at the time of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, as evidenced by medical records and the report from RINPAS. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84. The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, directing the release of the appellant.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant, suffering from schizophrenia, could claim the benefit of exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that nothing is an offence if the accused, at the time of doing the act, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law.
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 is the time when the offence is committed. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, as evidenced by medical records and the report from RINPAS, and therefore allowed the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, directing the release of the appellant.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred from Jail against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2005, passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Dumka in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004 and 82 of 2004 arising out of Kathikund P.S. Case No. 30/2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 519/2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer R.I. for three months.
3. The facts emerging from the fardbayan of Kartik Dehri (P.W.7) recorded on 11.06.2003 at 10:00 a.m. is that on 10.06.2003, the appellant killed her son Mantu Dehri, aged 9 years and after committing murder she was found sleeping besides the dead body. When Munia Devi (P.W.1) witnessed the incident, she raised hulla and informed the villagers. The informant who happens to be father of the deceased, rushed to the place and saw the dead body of his son Mantu Dehri. It is disclosed in the fardbayan itself that appellant was suffering from mental disorder since last four years. It is also disclosed that the appellant was assaulted by the villagers. The informant produced his wife Saraswati Rani (appellant) along with the weapon of crime before the Police. On the basis of fardbayan of Kartik Dehri, Kathikund P.S. Case No. 30/2003, dated 11.06.2003, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was registered.
The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.C. No. 107/2004. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was framed to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to substantiate charges examined altogether 9 witnesses and proved documents like fardbayan, formal F.I.R. postmortem report etc.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of her son and inflicted sentence as indicated above.
4. The learned counsel Ms. Amrita Bannerjee appointed as amicus curiae has challenged the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted under the exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. On the date on which she had killed her son, her mental condition was not good and in that state of mind, the offence was committed. The appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of occurrence which could well be gathered from the lower court record. The occurrence took place on 10.06.2003, F.I.R. was registered on 11.06.2003 on the basis of fardbayan of Kartik Dehri (P.W.7), the appellant was remanded to jail custody on 12.06.2003 and on the very next date i.e. 13.06.2003, the Jail Superintendent sent letter no. 602 to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, disclosing therein that Saraswati Rani (appellant) wife of Kartik Dehri is suffering from mental disorder and she has been admitted to Dumka Sadar Hospital for her treatment. A Medical Board was constituted who examined Saraswati Rani (appellant) and after examining the appellant, recommended to send the patient to RINPAS for further treatment. The Jail Superintendent by aforesaid letter has sought permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the appellant to RINPAS for her treatment. The permission was accorded on the very next day vide order dated 14.06.2003 passed in G.R. No. 519/2003.
From the letter no. 4179, dated 17.03.2016, received from Medical Superintendent, RINPAS, Ranchi it appears that appellant was under treatment from 15.06.2003 to 22.02.2004 and again she was admitted to the Hospital and treated between th
AI
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
