MADHO SINGH MAHI SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Madho Singh from an order of the Sessions Judge, Barnala, convicting him under Section 323, I.P.C. for causing simple hurt to Mst. Nihal Kaur, and under Section 302, I.P.C for deliberately putting to death Gurcharaa Kaur, minor daughter of Mst. Nihal Kaur, and sentencing to one year's R.I. on the first count and transportation for life under the other. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrent.

(2.) THE occurrence which is the subject matter of the case, took place on 17 -4 -1950 in the compound of Mst. Nihal Kaur's house. The Appellant & Mst. Nihal Kaur belong to village Haromajra. We are told that for some reason or the other the Ramdasis of the village had decided to boycott the Appellant who belongs to the same brotherhood and this created some sort of ill -will between him and other Ramdasis. On the fateful day, between 8 and 9 A.M., when Mst. Nihal Kaur was in the compound of her house, the Appellant came up armed with a Gandhali and caused two injuries on the head and one on the right arm of Mst. Nihal Kaur who fell down. On seeing this, Mst. Nihal Kaur's daughter Gurcharan Kaur, who was aged about 4 years, ran towards the Baithak of Asa. The Appellant also ran after her and struck her on the head with the result that she too fell down and became unconscious. P.W. Amur Singh was the first to come to the scene of occurrence and witness the crime. He tried to catch hold of the Appellant but the latter resisted and they both started grappling with each other. In the meanwhile P.W. Asa Singh and Ishar Singh son of Mangal also came up and all three of them succeeded in getting hold of him. They took him to his brother Ishar Singh's house and there chained him to a mulberry tree. Mst. Nihal Kaur started towards Maler Kotla with her daughter who was still unconscious. The child expired on the way. The reDort at the police station was lodged by Mst. Nihal Kaur about 1 P.M. The police challaned the Appellant in the Court of A.D.M. Barnala under Section 304, I.P.C. but the A.D.M. convicted him under Section 304(II), I.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I and a fine of Rs. 200/ - or in default of the payment of fine to 6 months' further R.I. The A.D.M. also ordered that on the expiry of the applicant's sentence, he should not be released unless he executed a personal bond with one surety in the amount of Rs. 2000/ - to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years and if he failed in this, he would undergo additional R.I. for 3 years. From this order of the A.D.M., the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge Barnala. The learned Sessions Judge being of the view that there was reason to think that the Appellant was not in a fit mental condition to take part in his defence, allowed the appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the Court of A.D.M. for proceedings under Section 464, Code of Criminal Procedure

(3.) THE first point that has been taken before us by the Appellant's counsel is that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the Appellant was not of unsound mind and was capable of making his defence. As I have already stated two medical witnesses gave evidence about the Appellant's mental condition at the time the proceedings against him started. The first was Dr. Daya Kishan Jain. This gentleman gave his designation as Medical Officer of Malerkotla but did not say a word as regards his academic qualifications and experience. He deposed that when the Appellant was in judicial lock -up at Malerkotla, as doctor -in -charge of the lock -up he saw him several times and his opinion was that "his mental condition was not at all sound". He also deposed that the Appellant's behaviour and movements were like those of an unsound person, and this opinion he had formed from the answers that he gave to the questions that he put to him. The doctor admitted that all that he was required to do at the time he saw the Appellant was to examine his injuries and no question arose about his mental condition. In addition he did not keep any note of the observations, that if at all he made from time to time, or the questions put to and the answers given by the Appellant. At least he did not produce any such record in Court in these circumstances I am not prepared to attach any importance to his evidence.