Khuraijam Somoi Singh vs State of Manipur

This is an appeal against the conviction of the accused Shri Khuraijam Somoi Singh u/s 302 of the I.P.C. sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life passed by Sri Birendra Kr. Sharma, the learned Additional Session Judge, Manipur West, Imphal in Session Trial Case No. 6/91/1191 dated 20-6-1992.

Prosecution case is that the accused K. Somoi Singh committed the murder of his step-father A. Sarangkhomba Singh of Waikhong Laimanai village by assaulting the deceased with a Haothang (dao) and axe on the 3rd day of December, 1982 at about 12-40 p.m. just in the very house of the deceased. The murder was witnessed by the daughter of the deceased (P.W. 1) and the victim succumbed to injuries on the spot. Local people and police rushed to the spot and the accused was arrested alongwith the weapons. A case was registered on the complaint of the P.W. 1 and the police commenced investigation and on completion thereof, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused who in the due course was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the doctor and 3 (three) police officers. On behalf of the accused 2 (two) witnesses were examined. Dr. Narendra Singh (P.W. 11) held the post mortem examination on the dead body of A. Saranghomba Singh and proved the injuries in consequence of which A Sarangkhomba Singh and died. P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 are the witnesses to prove the murder. The plea taken by the defence was that of insanity. The accused, while under examination stated that he was totally unaward as to what he had done even he could not recollect how the deceased died, he however stated that he assaulted a man whom he saw as tiger.

The sole contention raised before us is that the accused was of unsound mind at the time when he went out, picked up the dao and dealt dao blows, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Indeed, nothing is an offence which is done by a person of unsound mind under the circumstances set out above. It is a general exception to the rule contained in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code. To bring a case within the ambit of Section 84, it is said the burden is on the prisoner. Insanity or unsoundness of mind is an exception to the penal law. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove all the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In a case of homicide as well as offence of causing hurt or grievous hurt the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the requisite intention or knowledge ingrained u/s 299, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. Section 84, Indian Penal Code provides an exception to the general rule contained in the Penal Code where the plea of the accused is unsoundness of mind which incapacitated his faculties to know the nature of his acts or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception attracts Section 105 of the Evidence Act, which lays down the burden of proving the existence of the circumstances to bring the case within the said presumption and continue to presume the absence of the exceptional circumstances. However, Section 105 of the Evidence Act must be read along with the definition of the expression "shall presume" in Section 4 of the Evidence Act and the combined reading of both the sections bring in for that the Court shall record the absence of the exceptional circumstances as proved, unless after considering the matters before it, the Court believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, would act upon the circumstances did exist. The presumption that such circumstances must be put forward by the accused. The material must be sufficient at least to make a reasonable person to believe the existence of the said circumstances probable and to act upon them. The materials may be oral evidence, documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or may stem from the prosecution evidence. The accused is to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge to ponder as to whether the accused had the requisite criminal intention described in the Section 299 and/or other provisions of the Penal Code. If the Judge has a reasonable doubt he has to acquit the accused for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. We are of the view that the rule of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity are: (a) that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed by the accused that the requisite "mens rea" and the burden continues from the beginning till the end of the trial, (b) that it is a rebuttable presumption that the prisoner was not insane when he committed an offence in the sense set forth in Section 84, Indian Penal Code, (c) that the accused may rebut the presumption of sanity at the relevant time bringing the case within Section 84, I.P.C. by producing oral, documentary, circumstantial and other materials and he may discharge the burden by establishing a reasonable probable case. The accused is not called upon to establish the element of Section 84, IPC by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt and (d) that even the accused fails to establish affirmatively or conclusively that he was of unsound mind and committed the act under the circumstances set out in Section 84, IPC but raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards presence of essential ingredients of the offence, which of course includes, ''mens rea'', the requisite criminal intention, the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. We are also of the view that Section 6 of the I.P.C. is an extra ordinary provision which obligates the Court to consider whether case is covered by any of the exceptions under Chapter IV of the I.P.C., Section 6 of I.P.C., in our opinion, should read as a proviso to Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. That apart, Section 6 of the Code imposes statutory obligation on the Court to consider as to whether the case is covered by exception or not. The view that we have expressed is drawn from the decisions of this Court in Lohit Ch. Das v. State of Assam, (1986) 1 G LR 299 , which is passed on certain decisions of the Apex Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State of Gujarat, Ratan Lal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Latif Vs. The State of Assam, and Naushera and Others Vs. State of Haryana,

In this connection, it is relevant to mention that the accused after his arrest and till the commencement of trial before the Sessions Judge was undefended and the Magistrate before whom the accused was produced first after the arrest was unaware about the insanity of the accused. Accordingly, the Magistrate sent the accused to the judicial custody in prison. During the trial before the Sessions Judge while the plea of insanity was raised, the Sessions Judge made an enquiry by taking the evidence of Medical Officer, the Jailor and Asstt. Jailor of the prison. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses were taken as C.Ws. 2 and 3 and they were examined on 12-2-91, 20-4-91 and 6-5-91 respectively. D.W.1, Dr. Lourembam Surchandra Singh is a specialist in Psychiatry and he has examined the accused on 26-9-90. Dr. L. Surchandra Singh after examining the accused came to the conclusion that the accused was suffering from schizophreniform psychosis. It is further stated by C. W. 1 that such patient are likely to be aggressive, even violent at the time of illness and the accused will not be in a position to know the consequence of his act or in other words what he is doing. C.W.2, Thokchom Subaschandra Singh is the Jailor of Sajiwa Jail who stated In his evidence that only lunatic patient were transferred in Sajiwa Jail and the accused was transferred to Sajiwa Jail in 1989 from the Central Jail, Imphal as an U.T.P. C.W.3, M. Shamu Singh, Assistant Jailor, Sajiwa Jail stated in his evidence that the accused was in Sajiwa Jail and thereafter transferred to Central Jail, Imphal. After making the inquiry by taking the evidence of the aforesaid three Court witnesses Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that the accused was not a lunatic during the period of trial and thereafter the Addl. Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial.

The sole point which has been urged before us is that the accused was of unsound mind at the relevant time and on that count he, at the time of doing the act, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is a young man and he had no grudge, ill-will or animosity against the deceased. He suddenly picked up a dao and dealt blows on the body of the deceased. There is no evidence from the prosecution witnesses that there was any enmity or ill-will of the accused against A. Sarangkhomba Singh. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it further appears that it was a motiveless assault. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence regarding the motive of the murder by the accused. On receipt of the complaint the police went to the spot of occurrence and found the accused with an axe in his hand roaming near the pond. The accused after commission of the offence did not make any attempt to flee away, instead he was threatening the people that he will strike with the axe. This very conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence, indicates the unsoundness of his mind and we are of the view that such conduct is possible for a man who is not in sound state of mind. P.Ws. 4,5,6 and 7 has stated in their evidence that at the time of commission of the offence and prior to that the accused, Somoi Singh, was of unsound mind and he was treated by his deceased father, A. Sarongkhomba Singh. It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Sarongkhomba Singh used to treat the lunatic by adopting premitive methods. P.W.6 stated that in the cross-examination that immediately before the occurrence, the accused, Somoi Singh was suffering from unsoundness of mind and the deceased Sarongkhomba Singh treated him by adopting premitive methods by applying local herbs. P.W.6 further stated that during that time the accused was kept tied with rope as he sometimes became wild and took up sharp weapons and used to run and jump. It is also in the evidence of P.W.7 that the deceased, Sarongkhomba Singh was a local physician, and has been engaged in the treatment of lunatic persons. He further stated that at or before the death of Sarongkhomba Singh, the accused was a lunatic person and the accused was living with the deceased for the purpose of treatment. Considering the evidence of P. Ws.4, 5, 6 and 7, it is evident that at the time of commission of offence of murder the accused was of unsound mind and he became violent and picked up sharp weapons and began to run and jump. Consequently, it is evident that the time of commission of the offence the accused was of unsound mind. The defence adduced two witnesses to establish that the case falls u/s 84, I.P.C. D.W.I, Khuraijam Thambou Meetei stated in his evidence that prior to the date of occurrence the accused Somoi Singh have been suffering from mental disorder. His lunacy was in such nature that he was holding deadly weapons attempting to commit murders beyond control. The accused Somoi Singh was taken care by this witnesses, younger brother and during those period the accused was kept with fettering implements. D. W. 1 further stated that one day the accused escaped from his brother''s house and he came to know from the mother of the accused that he has gone to their house and the deceased Sarongkhomba Singh kept him in his house for treatment. D.W.1, further stated that on the next day he got the information that the accused Somoi Singh murdered his step father Sarongkhomba Singh. D.W.2, Hijam Yaima Singh is the brother of D.W.I who supported the statement of D.W.I in his evidence. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses it appears that the accused was ill for sometime and he noticed signs of insanity. In the instant case we do not get any picture about the mental condition of the accused immediately after the occurrence by any specialist psychiatrist because the accused has not been examined after his arrest by a specialist Medical Officer. Since he was not examined by any physician after his arrest, it is possible that the fact of his insanity was not brought to the notice of the Magistrate. However, it is in the evidence of the Medical Officer who has been examined as C.W. 1 that the accused was suffering from schizophreniform psychosis and it is also in the evidence that after arrest the accused was transferred from Central Jail, Imphal to Sajiwa Jail which is a Special Jail meant for the lunatics. The accused also received treatment there in the jail. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Medical Officer, and the confinement of the accused in a lunatic jail led us to reach the conclusion that the accused was at all relevant time mentally unsound and at the time of doing the acts he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he did was either wrong or contrary to law. The fact that a person was suffering from unsoundness of mind can be established by preponderence of probability on the basis of relevant features gleaming from the conduct of the accused, the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, and also by direct evidence. The accused has rebutted the presumption mentioned in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act by placing sufficient materials before the Court on the basis of oral, documentary evidence, presumptions, admission and the prosecution evidence. The materials placed before us establish or raise a reasonable doubt in our mind that the accused had not the requisite criminal intention at the relevant time and as such, the case squarely falls u/s 84, I.P.C. We hold that in the instant case by preponderance of probability it has been established that the accused was mentally unsound and at the time of the commission of the acts he was incapable of knowing the nature of acts and/ or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, and accordingly we set aside conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. However, we direct that the appellant may not be released until the requisite conditions of law are fulfilled.

We have acquitted the accused on the ground that at the time at which he was alleged to have committed the offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the acts alleged as constituting the offences and/or that they were wrong or contrary to law, but we record the finding that it was the accused who committed the act. Now, it would be the statutory obligation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West to follow meticulously the provisions of Section 335 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judge may direct detention of the accused in safe custody in such manner as he thinks fit or may order the accused to be delivered to any relative or friend of the accused on such terms and conditions as he thinks just and prudent. The accused may be detained in the lunatic asylum, however, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. We direct the learned Sessions Judge to follow the provisions of Section 338 of the "Code" carefully and cautiously to protect the interest of the society. The accused shall not be released from the safe custody until the concerned Civil Surgeon or the Chief Medical Officer or the Commission certified that the appellant is fit to live in the society and could not longer be a hazard to the society. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall report to the State Government the action taken by him u/s 335(1) of the Code. We draw the attention of the learned Sessions Judge and the authorities to the mandatory provisions contained in Section 338 of ''the Code''.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Before parting, we keep on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Kh. Nimai Singh, the learned amicus curiae who shall be paid remuneration entitled to him as per rules.