CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was originally argued in the month of February, 1997. The appellant's learned Advocate had taken up the plea that the accused would come under the general exception insofar as it was her contention that he was a person of unsound mind at the time when the offence was committed. It was pointed out to the Court that the accused had a history of mental illness and that he had been treated more than once in the mental hospital at Dharwad. The allied submission that was canvassed was that the trial Court ought to have, in view of this record ascertained the position as to whether the accused was of unsound mind at the time when the trial was being commenced as he would not have been in a legally fit condition to stand trial and enter upon his defence. If this was his position more importantly, even if the accused was certified to be of unsound mind and was incapable of standing trial, the other aspect of the matter namely the question as to whether he was of unsound mind on the date when the offence was committed had to be gone into. Since this was not done, we referred the matter to the mental hospital at Dharwad for the reason that the accused had been treated there more than once on earlier occasions. We had directed the authorities to keep the accused under observations and to put forward a considered report if possible, on the basis of their detailed observations and on the basis of the reports and the case history, the antecedents of the accused and more importantly on the basis of the records maintained by the institution in relation to his earlier periods of treatment and to indicate to the Court whether at the point of time when the offence was committed and at the point of time when he was to stand trial, the accused was of unsound mind.

(2.) THE doctors have carried out the directions of this Court and a report has been submitted. The report unequivocally indicates that the accused was of unsound mind at the time when he committed the offences. We have independenty applied our mind to the report submitted by the authorities and the Annexures thereto and we are satisfied that this is a correct report. The report is therefore taken on record and we can safely place reliance on it.

(3.) ON the basis of this report, it is very clear that the accused was of unsound mind at the time when the offences were committed. If this be the position, then the ratio of the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Sanna Eranna v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1983) 1 Kant LJ 115 : (1983 Cri LJ 619) would apply. Section 84 of the IPC makes a general exception in case of accused persons of unsound mind and clearly postulates that nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. In view of this situation, the conviction recorded against the accused is unsustainable in law and will have to be quashed.