NAGJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOW, we would discuss the alternative argument of Mr. Mathur, that, even if the appellant is held responsible for the murder of his wife Smt. Kastoori, he should not be convicted because of his insanity.

(2.) MR. Mathur referred to the statements of three prosecution witnesses viz. Gautam (P. W. 1), Bhimji (PW. 3) and Roopa (P. W. 6) to substantiate his contention that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder for about a year prior to the date of the occurrence. These three witnesses were examined about a year after the date of occurrence, In cross-examination Gautam (P. W. 1) has stated that Nagji was made for one and a half year and was behaving as a mad man. On being questioned by the court, the witness stated that prior to the incident accused was himself cultivating his field. That, he sometimes willingly took his food while sometimes he used to throw away the food. The witness further stated that be sometimes was keeping altogether quiet while at other times he went on talking continuously. Bhimji (P. W. 3), in the cross-examination, has stated about the accused being insane for the last two years. Replying to the court question the witness state that Nagji was not taking his food himself. That, during the days of occurrence he sometimes used to speak and sometimes used to keep quiet. The witness further stated that he was not tearing off his clothes. That, he was not doing the cultivation for about a year. That, his brother and mother used to make him put on his clothes. That, he was not going to graze his cattle and his wife and mother used to do that work. Roopa (P. W. 6) has stated, that for one and a half or two years Nagji was made. He did not speak anything. The witness then stated that he used to take his food and also bath.

(3.) WHEN provisions of section 84 Indian Penal Code are invoked, courts are to look for the evidence as to whether from the plea taken by the accused or the evidence taken from the defence side or even from the prosecution evidence it is spelt out that at the relevant time the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Cases are not rare in which it is not possible for the accused to produce evidence to substantiate the plea that at the crucial time of the commi-ssion of the crime he was suffering from unsoundness of mind. Even in extreme cases of insanity there may be lucid intervals. If the act is committed during lucid interval the culprit would not be entitled to the benefit under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It is sometimes very difficult to exactly locate the moment when an insane person has the lucid intervals. In the case like the present one, where the accused had remained mute throughout the trial it is still more difficult to find out as to what exactly the state of mind might have been at the time of the commission of the crime. In such cases the surrounding circumstances assume importance.