MITU KHADIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stood charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code with having committed the murde of Gaja Khadia (hereinafter described as the 'deceased') on Sept. 20, 1976 at about 7 P.M. at village Tarigerpalli. The appellant was under treatment by two Gunias (sorcerers), namely, the absconding accused Lalu and Bandhu (P.W. 9) owing to his illness and he called the deceased who had come to take his wife (P.W. 7) from the house of his father -in -law (P.W. 8) and abruptly taking out the Gupti which had been brought by Lalu stabbed the deceased on his chest which resulted in his death. Information was lodged with the police authorities and P.W. 11 took charge of the investigation. He examined witnesses, seized some articles on the spot, arrested the appellant, took steps for his medical examination as he noticed abnormalities in the conduct of the appellant and on the completion of investigation, placed a charge sheet against the appellant and the absconding accused Lalu. The appellant's plea at the trial was that he had not stabbed the deceased. From the statement of his recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and from the trend of cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses, the case of the appellant was that he was insane at the time the incident took place.

(2.) TO bring home the charge to the appellant, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses of whom P. Ws. 7 to 9 were witnesses to the occurrence and all of them had testified that the appellant stabbed the deceased on his chest by means of a Gupti. Two witnesses for the defence had been examined and one of them was the Jail Medical Officer who had observed the appellant from September 24. 1976 to Nov. 28. 1976. He had noticed many abnormalities and his report (Ext. A1 had been admitted in evidence. D.W.2, a resident of village Tangerpalli where the incident had taken place, had also been examined to establish the case of the defence that the appellant was insane at the time the occurrence took place.

(3.) IT is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased died a homicidal death as a result of the injury on his chest which had caused internal injuries affecting vital organs. Mr. Rangadhar Behara, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has not challenged the finding of the trial court that the appellant had stabbed the deceased to death and in our view, rightly so, in view of the clear and acceptable evidence of P. Ws. 7 to 9 in this regard. He has, however, contended that the act of the appellant would not be culpable in view of the provision contained in Section 84 of the Penal Code as the appellant, as would be clear from the evidence, was insane at the time the incident took Place. Mr. P. K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has supported the order of conviction and has submitted that there were some circumstances showing signs of insanity subsequent to the occurrence, but it could not be said that at the time the deceased was kilted by the appellant, the latter Was insane for which he could -get the benefit of Section of the - Penal Code.