STATE Vs. SINDHI DALWAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the above confirmation case was called on for hearing before us, Mr. Mengde, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused, made an application to the Court requesting that the accused, Raman, be medically examined by a competent Board of Psychiatrists in order to determine the present state of his mind.

(2.) IT will be necessary to state a few facts to understand the background of this application. In the months of July and August 1968, there was a spate of murders in the Western Suburbs of Greater Bombay. Offences were duly registered in the respective Police Stations but the murderer was never found. However, having regard to certain common peculiarities in these murders, superior police authorities suspected, on the basis of the records, the present accused as the murderer. The police were put on his trail, but since the accused had no fixed place of residence and his movements and operations were restricted to nights, the police were unable to catch him. On August 25, 1968, one Manjulabai Dalvi of Kandivli was contacted at about 11 a.m. She was able to give the police information about the dress that he was wearing at the time. This information was flashed to all the Police Stations in Greater Bombay and the whole police force was alerted to be on the look -out for a person of that description. On the night of the same day, i. e., August 25, 1968, there were two more murders in the area. The murdered persons were Lalchand and Dular who were the employees of Dr. Mandlik and were sleeping in a hut close to Dr. Mandlik's stables in Chinchavli, Malad. These murders also bore the same characteristics seen in the previous murders. The situation was utterly baffling. However, on August 27, 1968, when P. S. I. Fialho (P. W. 9) was patrolling along Imamwada Road at about 8 a.m., he saw the accused coming from the opposite direction. Photographs of the accused had been seen by him earlier, and he had also known from the flash received on the evening of August 25, 1968 what were the clothes and the footwear of the accused. He, therefore, recognized him and took him to the Police Station at Dongri. That is how the accused was caught.

(3.) AFTER that the prosecution led its evidence, and the time came for the examination of the accused under Section 842, Criminal Procedure Code. That examination went on for two days. It is a detailed examination. In this statement also the accused admitted having murdered the two persons, and it would appear from the answers given by the accused to the questions put to him that he gave substantially rational answers. Only at the end of his examination, he made some irrelevant and irrational statements. After his examination was over, Mr. Pawar put him in the witness -box for his evidence on behalf of the defence. In his examination -in -chief when asked why he had killed the two persons at Chinchavli, he replied that 'he had killed them because there was a war between the 3 Governments. The British Government, The English Government and third. He also killed them for greed of money. He could not give more details about war.' In cross -examination by the Public Prosecutor he admitted that 'he had known that the stable -owner's man was keeping the income from the stables in a cupboard.' He had gone there for the purpose of committing theft and had to kill the two of them as they were on his way to the place. On the same day, Mr. Pawar made an application to the Court to examine Dr. A. P. Patkar, the Hon. Assistant Psychiatrist, Nair Hospital, Bombay. He also requested that before Dr. Patkar was examined in Court, Dr. Patkar may be given an opportunity to carry out an investigation to determine the accused's state of mind. This application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor. The learned Judge, however, allowed the application, and accordingly Dr. Patkar interviewed the accused at the Arthur Road Prison on August 5, 1969 for about one hour and 20 minutes. After the interview, Dr. Patkar came to the conclusion that the accused must have suffered for a fairly long time from a disease which he described as 'chronic paranoid schizophrenia or Paraphrania.' The object of examining Dr. Patkar as a witness for the accused was to show that the accused, suffering as he did from that disease, was a man of unsound mind, who within the contemplation of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.