STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been sent by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to decide the following question -

(2.) IN order to decide the above question, brief facts of the case are given as under :- An FIR No. 20 of 1988 was lodged on January 14, 1988 in Police Station, Joginder Nagar. The allegations made in the FIR were that on January 14, 1988, at about 4.30 P.M. accused Daulat Ram got fits and allegedly having Darshan of Kali Devi and in order to satisfy the religious lust of offering sacrifice assaulted his wife Smt. Kunjo Devi, which ultimately resulted in her death. During the investigation of the case, it was revealed that the principal offender Daulat Ram had committed the murder of his minor son, Chaman Lal, aged 117 years on January 10, 1988 and that he had buried his body in a Nullah nearby the residential house of the accused with the aid of Sarvshri Himal Chand and Pancham Chand brothers of Daulat Ram. The police, as such, registered a case under Section 302/201 IPC against the accused persons. During the course of the trial, it was found that the principal offender Daulat Ram was incapable of making his defence and he was a partient of chronic schizophrenia. The learned Sessions Judge, in these circumstances, dealt the case of Daulat Ram under Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and passed an order that further proceedings in the case be postponed and the accused Daulat Ram was ordered to be kept in sufficient security in the judicial lock-up at Mandi till the District Magistrate, Mandi, made separate arrangements for his transmission to Lunatic Asylum in accordance with law. In view of the fact that in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1988, State v. Daulat Ram and two others, the accused persons had been challaned for the commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has made the present reference for deciding the above-mentioned question. According to the learned Sessions Judge, further proceedings in the instant case were required to be postponed in its entirety against all the accused persons.

(3.) IN Sohni's Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 18th Edition, Volume 4 page 3475, under point 7, it has been observed "If only of the two or more accused are of unsound mind and incapable of understanding their defence, it is not necessary to postpone the entire trial. The trial should proceed against the other accused." In support of this, the above mentioned cases of Bombay and Kerala High Courts have been cited. There is no contrary view taken by any other High Court.