STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. RUPESH MANGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent/Accused was acquitted of the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the?IPC?), vide the assailed Judgment, dtd. 30/10/2018, in Sessions Trial Case No.01 of 2017, the Learned Trial Court having concluded that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 IPC.

(2.) Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that; P.W.1 Reeta Rai, the daughter of the deceased, lodged Exhibit 1, the FIR, on 16/10/2016, informing the Rongli Police Station, East Sikkim, that the 81 year old deceased, her father who was living with her, had been attacked by the Respondent (her nephew and grandson of the deceased), who had arrived the previous day along with the deceased to stay with her, with a sharp aged weapon (patang) and murdered him. Exhibit 1 was duly registered under Sec. 302 of the IPC against the Respondent, aged 25 years. P.W.16 took up the investigation, on completion of which Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Respondent under Sec. 302 of the IPC. On 7/10/2017, the Learned Trial Court framed Charge against the Appellant under Sec. 302 to which the Respondent entered a plea of ?not guilty? and claimed trial. The Prosecution examined seventeen witnesses in a bid to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

(3.) (i). Pausing here momentarily, it may relevantly be noticed that the records of the Learned Trial Court reveal that the Respondent was taken into judicial custody on 17/10/2016 from where he was produced periodically before the Learned Trial Court, as per Law. On 10/4/2017, approximately six months from the time that the Respondent had been incarcerated the Learned Senior Counsel made a submission that the Respondent had earlier been diagnosed with some psychiatric disorders and therefore, may not be of sound mind to make his defence. While considering the submissions, the Learned Trial Court observed that on general examination by the Court the Respondent appeared normal but in view of his medical history referred him to the Psychiatrist at the STNM (Government) Hospital. Having examined and treated the Respondent, the concerned Consultant Neuro-Psychiatrist, Dr. Netra Thapa appeared before the Court on 4/5/2017 and was examined as Court Witness (C.W.1). Based on the medical history of the Respondent and his preliminary examination he opined that the Respondent was suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic features and he required at least two months" time to properly examine and evaluate the Respondent's mental condition. The Learned Trial Court on the same date ordered the Respondent's admission to the Psychiatric Unit of the STNM Hospital for two months under the care and treatment of C.W.1, who was directed to examine and evaluate his condition and to submit his Report before the Court by 15/7/2017. On 11/9/2017, C.W.1 was once again examined by the Learned Trial Court pursuant to which the Court inter alia recorded that from the statement of C.W.1 it was noted that the Respondent showed no symptoms of depressive or psychiatric disorder while he was in the Hospital and that there had been considerable improvement in his condition. That, he would thus be aware of the consequences of his acts and was capable of making his defence in the Court.