IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Kaliyappan - Petitioner
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Salem - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 4993 of 2018 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 2485 & 2486 of 2018
Decided On : 04-09-2020
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 84 and 302 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 , 328 , 329 167(2), 207 , 209 and 330 - Mental Health Act, 1987 - Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 - Evidence Act - Section 105 - Offence of murder - Act of a person of unsound - Who was presumably suffering from some mental illness, was taken by his father, to a native doctor, Varadha Naickar in Forest, Omalur Taluk, for purpose of treatment - While he was being examined by said doctor, ran away hollering that he does not need any treatment - Ran behind his son, accompanied by others, exclaiming Catch him” - Responding to this call, one, who was grazing his cattle nearby with a billhook in hand, tried to apprehend - Infuriated at that, is said to have snatched billhook from and attacked him indiscriminately, which eventually proved fatal - According to police, they arrested him and sent him to judicial custody - While was in custody, District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, , passed an order dated directing that should be examined by specialists in Institute of Mental Health (IMH) - Accordingly, was admitted as an in-patient in IMH, Kilpauk, on and was given treatment for his mental illness – Held, Since an enquiry under Section 329(2) Cr.P.C. is during trial, advocate of the accused should be permitted to discharge the burden by adducing materials to establish that case of accused falls within the General Exceptions in IPC - This also reinforces reasoning of this Court that expression hearing advocate of accused occurring in Section 329(2) Cr.P.C. should be given an expansive meaning – Court is impelled to exhort trial Judges to get themselves thoroughly acquainted with provisions in Chapter XXV of Code of Criminal Procedure, because, as per W.H.O. predictions, there is going to be a huge spike in our country in number of people with mental illness, as a sequel to which, there is bound to be a paradigm shift in the nature of crimes in near future, to tackle which, Court legal system should gear up - In this context, it may be worthwhile to quote Mr.G.P.Pilania, M.P., from his speech in Parliament on when amendments were introduced - Court places on record its profound appreciation to learned Amicus Curiae, for extensive research done by him and for expounding law for her effective assistance to this Court and for bringing up this sordid case to notice of this Court - criminal original petition stands disposed of in above terms - Connected Crl.M.Ps. stand closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to postpone the trial in connection with S.C.No.123 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, till the accused is capable of entering the defence or mentally sound to face the trial as contemplated under Section 84 IPC and Sections 328 and 329 Cr.P.C.)
1. This case was taken up through video conferencing.
2. On 12.05.2006, Kaliyappan, who was presumably suffering from some mental illness, was taken by his father Muniyappan, to a native doctor, Varadha Naickar in Mulluchettipatti Forest, Omalur Taluk, Salem, for the purpose of treatment. While he was being examined by the said doctor, Kaliyappan ran away hollering that he does not need any treatment. Muniyappan ran behind his son, accompanied by others, exclaiming Catch him”. Responding to this call, one Kondaiyan, who was grazing his cattle nearby with a billhook in hand, tried to apprehend Kaliyappan. Infuriated at that, Kaliyappan is said to have snatched the billhook from Kondaiyan and attacked him indiscriminately, which eventually proved fatal.
3. On these allegations, a case in Crime No.126 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC against Kaliyappan. According to the police, they arrested him on 13.05.2006 and sent him to judicial custody. While Kaliyappan was in custody, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, passed an order dated 07.07.2006 (D.No.1469 of 2006), directing that Kaliyappan should be examined by specialists in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), Kilpauk, Chennai - 10. Accordingly, Kaliyappan was admitted as an in-patient in the IMH, Kilpauk, on 25.08.2006 and was given treatment for his mental illness.
4. Since the police did not file final report within 90 days, the counsel for Kaliyappan filed a petition for statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., in which, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, passed the following order on 30.08.2006:
This petitioner filed the bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the accused is in judicial custody for more than the statutory period. Charge sheet not yet filed. It is an offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused is in judicial custody from 13.05.2006. Since the accused is under judicial custody for more than 90 days and filed bail application under mandatory provision under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., bail is granted. The accused is of unsound mind. Hence, the accused will be released on bail on executing a bond by the parent/guardian who undertook to give medical treatment to the accused for a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with two sureties for a like sum, the accused will be enlarged on bail. Since the accused is of unsound mind and is on medical care, no condition is imposed. The parent/guardian has to look after the accused carefully and give proper medical treatment and should produce the accused whenever required by the Court.
5. At this juncture, it may be relevant to extract the observation report dated 08.02.2007 that was submitted by the IMH, Kilpauk, to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, as that would clearly throw light on the mental condition of Kaliyappan while he was in judicial custody.
Mr. Kaliappan, S/o Muniappan sent with reception order cited above, was admitted in Ward No.1 and was observed from 25.08.2006.
During observation, the patient has the following symptoms:
2. Appeared pre-occupied
3. Avoids eye to eye contact; did not have any emotional expression
4. Apathetic mood
5. Neglected self care
Based upon the above, we are of the opinion that Mr. Kaliappan is suffering from a major mental disorder schizophrenia.
He was treated till 06.10.2006. On 06.10.2006, Mrs. Perathayee and Mr. Irulappan who have executed the bail bond for the patient Kaliyappan, patient’s father Muniappan and one more relative has reported. As they were desirous of continuing treatment a
Miss Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar and others
Suchita Srivastava and another vs. Chandigarh Administration
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab
Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. Administrator General of West Bengal
State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and others
Neelam Mahajan Singh vs. Commissioner of Police
Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others
Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India
State of Kerala and another vs. N.M Thomas & others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.