JAI SHANKER LUNATIC Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellant was charged of having committed on April 24, 1970 the murder of a lady doctor, Dr. Vaidya, at Kulu. On May 4, 1970, he was arrested on the aforesaid allegation. On May 9, 1970, his advocate made an application before the Magistrate, Kulu under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The application stated that the advocate had interviewed the appellant in the judicial lock-up where he was detained and found him talking incoherently and showing symptoms of impairment of the cognative faculties of mind and otherwise of an abnormal behaviour. The applicant prayed that he should be removed to the mental hospital at Amritsar for ascertaining whether he was in a position to make his defence. Since there was no response to the said application, a similar application was again addressed to the Magistrate on June 3, 1970. To this application were annexed three medical certificates by Dr. B. N. Sur, Dr. Pathak and Dr. K. P. Singh respectively dated May 10, 1970, May 15, 1970 and May 9, 1970, all the three certifying that even as a medical student the appellant had shown signs suggesting unsoundness of mind. In the meantime the case was transferred to the Court of the District Magistrate, Bilaspur. On September 11, 1970 the appellant's advocate once again filed an application for medical check up setting out therein various instances displaying abnormal and strange conduct on the part of the appellant right from his student days, as also during the proceedings in the Court on August 31, 1970 when the appellant, amongst other things, proclaimed that he was Lord Vishnu and the ruler of Delhi. By his order dated September 23, 1970, the Magistrate rejected the application stating that he had no reasons to doubt the appellants sanity and decided to proceed with the committal proceedings. In this order the Magistrate cited an application made by the appellant on July 26, 1970 for remitting to his mother the money seized by the Police from his person at the time of his arrest, as also his replies to the questions put to him if copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were supplied to him under Section 173 of the Code. This was done with a view to show that the appellant understood the proceedings and their nature. Against this order a revision application was filed before the Sessions Judge. That was dismissed by an order dated November 30, 1970. A further revision against that dismissal was then filed before the High Court.

(2.) By his order dated December 23, 1970, Rangarajan, J., ordered that "the larger interests of Justice require that the accused should be examined for his mental condition and that such an inquiry should not in all fairness and in order to be directly useful, be still further delayed". The learned Judge directed that the appellant should be produced before the Medical Superintendent, Snowdon Hospital, Simla for his examination by a competent doctor or doctors by keeping him in observation for such time as might be considered necessary. He further directed that the Superintendent should forward a report of the result of such examination to the committing Magistrate "who will act according to law in the light of such report".

(3.) Pursuant to the said order, the Superintendent of Snowdon Hospital sent his report dated January 7, 1971 to the Magistrate stating that the appellant had been examined by Dr. V. K. Mudgil, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Himachal Pradesh Medical College and Hospital, who reported that from a mere examination of the appellant in Psychiatric Out Patient Department it was difficult to give an opinion on the appellant's mental condition, and therefore, recommended that he should be sent to some mental hospital for observation. To an inquiry by the Magistrate dated January 11, 1971, the Snowdon Hospital authorities replied on January 19, 1971 that the hospital had no provision for admission as in-door Patients and care of alleged lunatice and once again suggested that the appellant should be sent to a mental hospital. It appears that at the instance of the committing Magistrate the appellant was thereafter admitted in the Snowdon Hospital as an in-door patient. The report of the Superintendent dated March 26, 1971 shows that he was examined by the psychiatrist of the Hospital and the Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, both of whom advised the appellant's admission to a mental hospital for further examination since a final opinion could only be given on the basis of psychological tests done by a qualified clinical psychologist with a trained and experienced nursing staff.