CHANDU LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a somewhat curious case. The applicant committed an assualt on the wife of a Civil Surgeon find was sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. The defence of insanity was raised at the trial. The medical evidence regarding the accused was conflicting. One Doctor thought him insane, but on the ether hand the Superintendent of the Bareilly Lunatic Asylum, under whose supervision he was placed, reported and gave evidence that he was not insane. Under these circumstances the learned Sessions Judge says that if the burden of proving affirmatively the man's unsoundness of mind had been on the prosecution he would say that it ha d not been discharged, but insanity being of a nature of a general exception which must be proved by the accused, he was of opinion that the defence had failed to prove inanity. THIS is a correct statement of the law and in view of the evidence of the Superintendent of the Lunatic Asylum I do not think that it can be challenged on the evidence. I may add that the case was again reported to Government by the Sessions Judge for such action as Government might take and Government has since returned the record stating that it is advised that the ma n is not insane. Under the circumstances I do not see my way to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

(2.) I accordingly dismiss the application.