Ram Parkash Daulat Ram vs The State

Soni, J.—Ram Parkash has been found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ferozepore, for having killed his father Daulat Ram on 21-9-1949, at Zira. He has been sentenced to transportation for life with a recommendation that Government should consider his case under the provisions of Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure. He has appealed through jail.

There is no doubt about the facts of the case and they are indeed admitted by the Appellant himself.

The occurrence took place at 9.80 in the evening of 21-9-1949, and the information of the occurrence was reported at the Police Station which is in Zira itself at 9.45 P.M. by Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh stated that ho was lying on the roof of his residential house after taking his evening meals when he heard a noise in the direction of the house of Daulat Ram, his neighbour, from where it was being said, "Parkash has killed me, rescue me." Then he heard a shriek. He got up and got down from the roof of his house and came into the lane towards the house of Daulat Ram. The outer doors of the house were found closed and on his calling upon the inmates to open the doors Ram Parkash refused to open them. When an enquiry was made about Daulat Ram, Ram Parkash kept quiet. A number of persons collected there. Ram Parkash could be seen walking on the roof of the house with a ghotna in the light of a gas lamp from the lane, but he refused to open the doors. Balwant Singh told the Police that there appeared to be no one in the house except Ram Parkash who finding an opportunity had done his father to death. Assistant Sub-Inspector Shiv Singh who was posted as Station House Officer at the time proceeded to the house which was at a distance of a furlong from the Police Station. He found the door of the house locked from inside and a number of people standing in the lane. A ladder was sent for and by the help of the ladder he got on to the roof of the house and unchained the door from inside. He found Daulat Ram lying dead on a charpoy. The accused was sitting near the charpoy of the deceased. Shiv Singh took possession of the ghotna which was lying bloodstained new the charpoy. The accused was wearing a kachha which was blood stained. It was also taken possession of by the Assistant Sub-Inspector and he arrested Ram Parkash. Balwant Singh has appeared as a witness and supported the information which he gave to the Police. (After discussing the prosecution evidence the judgment proceeds:)

The accused when examined gave his age as 30 years and when asked replied that he had killed his father, but that he was not in his senses at that time. He said that he respected his father very much and wanted his prosperity. He admitted that at the time when the Police arrived he was in his senses and had produced the ghotna. He stated that he had regained his senses, then, but said that at the time of the murder he was in a fit of mad(sic) ness. This was the statement before the Committing Magistrate. Before the Sessions Judge he stated that after his arrest he once got a fit in the jail. He was then sent to the hospital at Amritsar where he stayed for six months. (After discussing the defence evidence the judgment proceeds:)

It is a pity that the Police Sub-Inspector did not have the accused examined immediately after the occurrence. It is also a pity that we do not know what kind of fits Ram Parkash accused had, if he had any, which led to his being sent to the hospital, Amritsar; nor do we know how he behaved there. From the evidence it is quite clear that Ram Parkash has been having fits and at the time when he is having fits he is not responsible for his acts. But the question is, whether at the time when Ram Parkash killed his father, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he was committing, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The burden of proving this is on him. It is quite clear that he killed his father on the roof of his house, and the ghotna must have been taken from the kitchen below. He knew that he was taking the ghotna. He had also shut the doors of his house and when asked to open the doors of the house he not only refused to do so but began to throw bricks on the people. When the Sub-Inspoctor arrived he appeared to be normal. He produced the ghotna before him and answered him rationally. There is no doubt that there is no motive but it is not every act which is protected by the law. The law required proof that at the time and moment when the act is being committed the person should be in such a state of mind that his cognitive faculties had been so impaired that ho would not know what ho was doing nor would he know any distinction between right and wrong. It cannot be said that the evidence that has been led in this case proves that at the time band moment when this act was committed the accused was so impaired in his mental faculties that he was irresponsible for his acts and has to be excused. Bagga Singh''s statement is that at 11 in the morning his eyes were red and that he had had an epileptic fit. His relation Amar Jit may be trying to help him when he stated that he had a fit at 7 o''clock in the evening but even he states that at 8.30 he had quietened down. One hour afterwards at 9.30 this offence is said to have been committed. In my opinion, it has not been proved that at that time when he committed the offence he was of unsound mind. The injuries that he had inflicted on his father were very many. (After giving the description of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, the judgment proceeds:) All the injuries that Ram Parkash was inflicting were inflicted on the head. He knew that he was inflicting injuries on the head. In my opinion, therefore, he cannot take any advantage of the provisions of Section 84, Penal Code. To use the words of the Judges in the celebrated M.C. Naughten''s case (1843) 10 cl. and F. 200 : 8 E.R. 718 in order to,

establish a ground of insanity it must clearly be proved that at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong.

In the case of Edward Arnold it was observed by Tracy J., in 16 St. Tr. 695:

It is not every kind of frantic humour or something unaccountable in a man''s actions that points him out to be such a mad man as is to be exempted from punishment; it must be a man that is totally '' deprived of his understanding and memory and doth not know what he was doing, no more than an infant, than a brute or a wild beast. It is only such persons who are not the object of punishment.

In my opinion, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding him to be guilty of an offence u/s 302, Penal Code, and sentencing him to transportation for life in the circumstances of the case. At the same time, while dismissing the appeal I endorse the learned Sessions Judge''s recommendation that this is a fit case in which the Government should exercise its prerogative of mercy and effect a substantial reduction of his sentence I suggest that the convict should be watched in the jail and that if ho shows any signs of epileptic fit or mental delusions he should be properly examined and if necessary sent to a Mental Hospital.

Falshaw, J.

I agree.