RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal stem from the judgment dated May 27, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jhunjhunu whereby the appellant Ravi Kumar was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) A report was lodged on October 31, 2001 by Rudmal Sarpanch of Village Thathwadi against the appellant to the effect that the appellant committed murder of his wife. A case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu. Charges under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant admitted the allegation made against him. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3.) EVIDENTLY mandate of section 329 Crpc is that where the court comes to the conclusion that the accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence the trial should be postponed. Subsequently, the trial should be commenced only after recording medical evidence about fitness of the accused. Flouting of the mandate of section 329 Crpc would vitiate the trial. But in the instant case, as already noticed, learned trial Judge completely overlooked the mandate of Section 329 Crpc. Despite the fact that the appellant was of unsound mind and he had been admitted in Mental Hospital Jaipur, the trial court did not wait till the appellant was completely treated for his mental disease. It was incumbent on learned trial court to call for the report of Mental Hospital Jaipur about the fitness of the appellant. Learned trial court without the evidence of Psychiatrist could not have observed that the appellant was fit and normal from his mental disease. We find no material on record which could establish that the appellant was completely treated before the trial commenced. Learned trial Judge was required to follow the mandate of Section 329 Crpc. It thus vitiate the trial and the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside.