The court upheld the necessity for a comprehensive evaluation of mental health in relation to criminal responsibility under Section 84 IPC.

1. As directed by our earlier order dated 27/11/2024, the Mental Health Report of the Applicant from the Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, dated 06/12/2024 under the signature of Psychiatrist (Class-I) is placed before us.

It is reported that Pradeepkumar C. Murugan (the present Applicant), a male aged 35 years, is suffering from Schizophrenia and his mental status examination has revealed as under :-

“Conscious/less cooperative/communicative, unkempt, ETEC-Initiated and not-maintained, occasional muttering to self, PMA-increased, Mood-euthymic, Affect-restricted, Speech-spontaneous/coherent/at time irrelevant, denies any perceptual abnormality, Insight-absent, Judgment- Impaired.”

He is presently on psychotropic medication, the details of which are furnished in the report.

The Remark column of the report records as under :-

“At present prisoner is behaviorally and mentally unstable. Currently admitted in psychiatry ward (on 04/12/2024) of medical wing of prison with worsening of psychotic symptoms. He needs regular psychotropic medications and follow-up for long period.”

2. From perusal of the report, it is evident that the Applicant is diagnosed to be a patient of Schizophrenia, which according to the medical jurisprudence is overpowering mental illness.

Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel representing him, do not dispute the fact that he require treatment as it is a form of mental illness.

The question before us is, whether he deserve his release on bail, during the pendency of his Appeal, which is admitted by this Court, preferred on being aggrieved by the finding of conviction recorded against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.534 of 2015, where he was charged under Section 302 of IPC.

Reaching a conclusion that he has committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC, as has done his own father, to death, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. It is the specific contention of Mr.Joshi in support of the Application, seeking suspension of sentence and securing his release on bail, that the defence of the accused under Section 84 of IPC was not taken into account by the learned Judge and the evidence brought by him on record through two defence witnesses.

The first witness; being the Medical Expert, who had examined him in the year 2016 as an inmate in Yerwada Central Jail, and indicated his symptoms of depressed mood, voicing suicidal ideas, socially withdrawn behaviour, sleep disturbance and occasionally aggressive behaviour. Dr.Mahamuni (DW 1) had deposed that he had recovered from those complaints, but was on maintenance treatment, but categorically stated that even after his treatment, he continued to have relapses and he placed before the Court, the original case papers of the patient and referred to his peculiar symptoms.

4. Another witness examined in support of his defence under Section 84 of IPC is his own sister, who deposed about the history of his mental illness, by referring to an incident of December 2010, when he behaved in disorderly manner and was murmuring. She was told by her father that he was mentioning about hearing some noise and was saying that someone was coming to kill him. He was, therefore, required to be admitted as an indoor patient in SKS hospital. This episode was again repeated in the year 2011, according to DW 2, his medication was changed.

Referring to the life that he was living, she also deposed about his marriage, which resulted into troublesome relationship on account of his disorderly behaviour and, ultimately h