PUJAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has sent this jail appeal challenging his conviction u/S. 302 IPC for the murder of one Durgavva and another Veereshappa. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence u/S.302 IPC. Though there were charges u/S.323 IPC for having caused injury to Lachmavva his mother and criminal intimidation under S.506 IPC for having intimidated Huligeppa, he was acquitted of those two charges.

(2.) Briefly stated it was the prosecution case that there was some property dispute. When two deceased were sleeping in their house, the accused inflicted fatal blows with Vanike on them and when his mother attempted to intervene she was also assaulted. The accused did not engage any counsel in the Sessions Court, but a Standing Counsel was appointed during the trial. Though specifically the accused appellant did not plead in his defence u/S.313 Cr. P.C. that he was of unsound mind when the offence is alleged to be committed the trend of the cross-examination was to that effect. The Sessions Court found that the prosecution has established guilt against the accused for the main offence u/S.302 IPC and did not agree with the contention of the defence counsel that the appellant should have the benefit of S.84 IPC.

(3.) We appointed Sri M. V. Sheshachala the learned counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this appeal. He placed on record his able assistance as he had applied his mind to the vitiating circumstances in the case and urged that the Sessions Court has failed in its primary duty of holding an enquiry into the mental condition of the appellant accused as required u/S.329 Cr. P.C. and giving a finding on that mental condition before proceeding with trial. Before taking up the appeal on merits, we heard the amicus curiae as well as learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor on this preliminary point and perused the records. We find that the fact of unsoundness of mind of the accused was brought to the notice of even the Committal Court at the earliest when on 24-3-1986 it received a requisition from the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Bellary that the accused be referred to the Mental Hospital, Dharwar or Nimhans, Bangalore for observation for his abnormal behaviour. On this requisition he directed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Bellary to transfer him to the Mental Hospital at Dharwar. Even on 19-4-86 on which date the appellant was required to be produced before the learned Magistrate even before the chargesheet was filed it was reported to the learned Magistrate that he was still in Mental Hospital at Dharwar and he recorded this fact in the proceedings of that date. However, he directed the prison authorities to produce the accused before him soon after he was discharged from the Mental Hospital. Chargesheet was filed on 30-4-1986. Even on that date, a note was made in the order sheet that the accused was transferred to the Mental Hospital, Dharwar for treatment as per the Court order dated 24-3-1986. However, it appears the accused was produced on 19-5-1986 and on 21-5-1986 the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court, Raichur.