STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel representing the State and the accused in these two appeals. The extremely distressing facts briefly stated are that on the evening of 13. 6. 1995 at about 6. 45 p. m. the owner of a petty shop P. W. 1 Mustaq Pasha had kept his young son Sadiq Pasha in-charge of the shop and gone to visit a relation. The accused came there, and asked him for two cigarettes and when Sadiq Pasha asked him for the money he got enraged, caught hold of the boy, pulled him out of the shop, picked up a club and started hitting him with it. The boys mother Smt. Naseembanu ran to the rescue of her son Sadiq and very unfortunately the accused who appeared to be gripped by frenzy assaulted the mother with the same club and ran away from that place. The injuries inflicted were relatively serious particularly the head injuries as a result of which both mother and son died on the spot. The incident had been witnessed by numerous persons, there was no doubt about the identity of the assailant who was traced out by the police on the next day and arrested. The blood stained clothes were recovered at his instance. On conclusion of the investigation the accused was put up for trial and the trial court considering that this is virtually an open and shut case wherein there are 5 eye witnesses whose evidence is absolutely unimpeachable, recorded a conviction against the accused.

(2.) IT is very necessary for us to record that the defence pleaded was not one of denial. Obviously, on this evidence it would be close to absurdity to deny the fact that the accused had inflicted the injuries in question. The defence led the evidence of Dr. H. S. Venkatesh who is DW. 1 and he in turn produced exhibits D1 to D 13 which are the medical records of the accused. On the basis of these records, the defence contended that the doctor himself has diagnosed that the accused was suffering from Paranoid Psychosis which is incurable. It was also established that the accused had been treated at NIMHANS hospital for mental disorders about two years prior to the incident. In other words, the defence sought to bring the case within the exception as prescribed in IPC under Sec. 84 on the ground that by reason of unsoundness of mind the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. The trial court has very carefully examined this contention particularly in the light of the 3 supreme court decisions reported in 1995 (1) Crimes, 711; 1990 (2) Crimes, 233 and AIR 1994 SC 1041. These judgments however were pressed into service principally in order to justify the defence plea that these cases would not qualify for a conviction under Sec. 302 IPC but that Sec. 304 would apply in so far as it would constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We shall deal with that proposition subsequently.

(3.) ON the more important issue relating to Sec. 84 IPC and the plea of insanity, reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. 1991 Crl. L. J. 160, 2. 1985 Crl. L. J. 196, 3. 1987 Cr1. L. J. 618. On a consideration of the material placed before the court, the learned trial Judge recorded the view that irrespective of the mental condition that was pleaded on behalf of the accused, that the material placed before the court would only indicate that the accused suffered some mental infirmity and underwent treatment for it but that this was at an earlier point of time. The learned trial Judge on a careful analysis of the facts of the case recorded the conclusion that at the time, of the incident, there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the accused was mentally handicapped and that consequently, the defence pleaded was liable to be rejected. The general behaviour of the accused as is evident through recreation of the incident is sufficient to establish that the accused could not be said to have been in such a mental condition that he did not know the nature and consequences of his act and on the basis of this finding, the defence plea was rejected and the accused came to be convicted. Having regard to the special features of the case a conviction was recorded under Sec. 304 Part II IPC and it is in respect of this conviction that the State has filed Crl. A. 1480 /1998 assailing the acquittal under Sec. 302 IPC and contending that the accused ought to have been convicted under this section and awarded a heavier punishment. On the other hand, the accused has preferred Crl. A. 1082/1998 challenging the conviction itself. We have heard both the appeals together in so far as they relate to the same incident and to the same judgment. We have done a very careful and thorough review of the record and after considering the submissions both factual and legal, we are disposing off both the appeals through a common judgment.