SARASWATI MAHADEO JADYAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE courts while dealing with cases of persons suffering from mental ailments of a sufficiently serious gravity and therefore qualifying for the immunity conferred by section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, are of necessity obliged to consider certain additional aspects beyond the medico legal frame work. Where the accused happens to be a woman and a person coming from the poorest strata of society, the obligation on the Court gets accentuated. The law undoubtedly exonorates from punishment an accused who is legally insane and who therefore was not in a position to know the consequences of his or her acts at the time of the commission of the offence. The Criminal Procedure Code prescribes the manner in which persons of unsound mind are required to be dealt with and in general requires the Court to commit such a person to a Mental Hospital for appropriate treatment. A Court before whom a defence of insanity succeeds cannot merely acquit the accused but will of necessity have to direct that the person should be taken care of adequately in a mental hospital. It is one of the requirements of section 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Court is required to give a finding as to whether the act complained of was committed by the accused or not, the obvious reason for this being that it would have a bearing on the future course of action. In cases where the accused has displayed violent tendencies, homicidal tendencies, sexual attacks or sexual depravity etc. these aspects are predominant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether at all it would be safe to release such a person from the Mental Hospital even if the patient responds completely to the treatment. The danger to society at large in the event of a relapse is a predominant consideration for the Court deciding the matter and in this view, it would be appropriate after recording the aforesaid finding, to direct that the authorities incharge of the Mental Hospital shall assess the past history and record of the patient and shall very carefully, after long term observation, record a composite finding as to whether there is any possibility of the patients reverting to the old condition, whether under provocation or for any other reason.

(2.) ONE of the factors which will have to be taken into consideration while dealing with cases of accused persons who, as in the present case have virtually nobody in this world to assist or take care of them or provide for them, or in the cases of patients who are so situated that they will be illtreated or ostracised by their people and driven to beggary if they are to be released, merely because of the earlier displayed insanity, is the obvious question as to whether release from jail would put the accused in a worse situation. The Court will be required to issue appropriate directions to the Doctors and other authorities concerned to decide as to whether in the given or particular set of circumstances, the patient would have a relapse. In such a situation, it would be appropriate for the authorities to keep the patient in the Mental Hospital itself as the release would be both inappropriate and undesirable. First, however, the facts :

(3.) THIS appeal presents a set of extremely distressing facts but it also raises certain aspects of some importance vis-a-vis section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant before us Saraswati Mahadeo Jadyal is a resident of a little village by name Bhadkambwadi, in Ratnagiri District. She comes from an extremely poor strata and was married to a labourer who, as the record indicates, was not only in dire straits but was also an Alcohol addict. The prosecution alleges that the accused had given birth to a male child about a week prior to 18-8-1987. It is alleged that on the night of that day, the accused strangulated the infant and thereafter went to a lonely place and left the body there. Next morning, some of the villagers found the body and being a very small place, it was recognised as that of the child of the accused. She was questioned about it and she is alleged to have admitted to P. W. 6 Laxmibai who is also a local mid-wife and to P. W. 7 Savitri Ramchandra Jadyal who is her sister-in-law, that she had stranguled the child because the husband was not only spending all his money on drink but that he was not giving her any money for the household expenses and care of the child. It appeared from her version that out of severe desperation she had strangled her own child and thrown it away. The Police were informed and they placed her under arrest.