NAUBAT Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Naubat who has been convicted under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to transportation for life. The occurrence in respect of which he had been made to stand his trial and was committed to the Court of Sessions took place on the 29th October, 1944. But since Naubat had been found to be of unsound mind, he was sent by the Sessions Judge to the mental hospital where he remained till about 22nd August, 1951. He was then certified to be fit to stand his trial and was produced in the Court of Sessions, and then the trial began.

(2.) Shortly stated the case for the prosecution was as follows. The Appellant and Dalpat, deceased were related to each other. About a month before the 29th October, 1944 Smt. Premwati; the daughter of the deceased Dalpat, was scraping grass in the jungle at noon. She was all alone then. The Appellant came from behind and caught her. Smt. Premwati rebuked him and raised an alarm and told him that she will disclose his behaviour to people in the village. The Appellant then left her and went away. Smt. Premwati on returning home informed her mother of what had happened who in her turn informed Dalpat deceased about it. Dalpat scolded the Appellant for his misbehaviour with his daughter. The Appellant then threatened that on a suitable occasion he will take his revenge. It was alleged that on the 29th October 1944 early in the morning the Appellant attacked Dalpat with a lathi while he was in the jungle and put him to death. Hari Ram, who was in a hut nearby heard the cries of the deceased and came out. He saw the Appellant dealing lathi blows to the deceased. He raised an alarm on which Chukkhan and others came to the spot. Chukkhan also saw the occurrence. When the Appellant wanted to run away, Hari Ram raised an alarm and made him sit there. Hari Ram went to the house of Dalpat and informed the members of his family. Badal Chaukidar on hearing of the occurrence went to the spot and found Dalpat lying dead. The Chaukidar went to the police outpost and lodged a report. The matter was then taken up by the police for investigation and ultimately the Appellant was challenged.

(3.) The defence of the Appellant was that he was of unsound mind at the time when he committed this offence and he did not understand the nature of his act. He had admitted that the lathi, Exh. 1, the coat, Exh. 2 and the dhoti, Exh. 3, were blood stained and were recovered from his possession just after the occurrence and were his.