JAGANNATH DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have exhaustively dealt with the facts of the present case in our judgment dated 17/7/1989 which may be treated as a part of the present judgment too. The appellant was found guilty by the trial court on the basis of circumstantial evidence that the appellant killed his wife Pratima even though the motive for the murder was not clinched. It came out in the evidence not only in the first information report but also from the testimony of several witnesses that the appellant suffered from leprosy and was also suffering from inanity for sometime past. The appellant while passing through the road, talked aimlessly to the passers-by and sometime rushed out to beat them. The appellant had no means to maintain his wife and children and did not have any landed property either. The victim, Pratima used to live at the house of her father with the children but sometime she used to come to the house of the appellant with the children. 7/8 days prior to the incident the appellant brought his wife, Pratima and the son and daughter at his house from the house of his father-in-law. Despite the fact that the appellant did suffer from leprosy for a period of 7/8 years prior to the date of the incident, they had one daughter and a son. The daughter was aged about 718 years and the son was aged about 2-1/2/3 years on the date of the incident. At the time of the occurrence, the eldest daughter was in her maternal uncles house. Many of the witnesses testified to the effect that the appellant had a good relationship with his wife. The testimonies of P.Ws. 3,4 and 5 are relevant on the point.

(2.) In our considered view the general law is that the plea of insanity or that of temporary insanity is a special plea that is to be taken by the defense and the onus to prove that the appellant at the relevant time was suffering from insanity per se or even of temporary insanity is on the appellant. The learned trial judge did not think it his duty to cause the appellant to be examined by any psychiatrist or by an expert on mental disease for clinching the issues as to whether the appeliant was really suffering from any insanity. We do not really find out any positive antms on the part of the appellant to kill Pratima unnecessarily but then the fact remains that Pratima was done to death in a brutal manner. We were of the further view, since the prosecution evidence itself indicated that the appellant was temporarily insane for a time of about I month prior to the date of the incident and almost all the witnesses spoke about his mental infirmity at the relevant time, the ends of justice required that the appellant should be examined by a doctor who is an expert in mental disease. We forwarded the records to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol so that there can be a proper examination of the accused appellant by a psychiatrist and/or an expert in mental diseases with a direction that after the said report the records would be returned back to us by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol. The appellant was examined by the Head of the department, Psychiatric Unit, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital, Burdwan on 9/6/1990 and on 11/6/1990 and by a report dated 18/6/1990, it was submitted before us that the appellant is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The details of the said findings are in his report. We accept the said report which reveals that on the date of the examination he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. It was found by the Head of the Department, Psychiatric Unit of the Burdwan Medical College and Hospital that he was suffering from a delusion and he had auditory hallucination thinking that people were conspiring against him. He was of a suspicious and irritable mood but he become cheerful when religious matters are discussed. Because of the impact of leprosy on him, the doctor found deformity of the feet and the toes specially at the lower extremities.

(3.) Reading the entire evidence in the context of the finding by the doctor who is a specialist we feel no hesitation to find that the appellant must have killed his wife by reason of unsoundness of mind when he was incapable of knowing the nature of act or that he was doing some thing either wrong or contrary to law.