Ujagar Singh Ganda Singh vs State

Gurnam Singh, J.—Ujagar Singh Appellant aged 27 has been convicted u/s 302, Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. The learned trial Judge while rejecting the plea that the case was covered by Section 84, Penal Code holds that the cased is suffering from fits of insanity'' and has, therefore, made a recommendation to the Local Government to commute the sentence to one of live years simple imprisonment and to remove the accused to some mental hospital. The convict has appealed.

That Ujagar Singh killed his uncle Kundha Singh by a single stroke of spear at his neck on 11-6-1951 is not only amply established by the evidence of his own brOrs. Pillu and Magher Singh (P. Ws. 7 and 12) and his uncle Karnail Singh (P. W. 6) but was not disputed at the trial and is not contested before us cither. The accused was caught at the spot with the blood stained weapon of offence in his hand and detained till the arrival of police. The blood on the spear was found to be human by the Serologist. The question that is agitated and falls for decision is whether the Appellant at the time when the offence was committed, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

The relevant facts set forth in the F.I.R. and brought out in evidence at the trial are these: About a month prior to this incident Ujagar Singh had gone to Dabhwali to meet his sister. There he got a fit of insanity and information about it was sent to his relations at Kalewala. He was then brought back to his village by his mother and uncle Kundha Singh deceased. The insanity was of a degree that the accused had to be brought in chains and was kept chained for several days. In the hope that he might behave better, he was released one day, but he proved to be violent and attacked his own mother. He was, therefore, re-chained and a constant guard was put on him. At about 2 P.M. on the day of occurrence when Kundha Singh deceased and Pilu lay asleep at a few paces from the court-yard where Ujagar Singh was confined, he somehow got himself released, took out a spear from Anr. room of the house and plunged it into the neck of Kundha Singh. Pilu had in the meantime got up and he too was attacked. Pilu with the assistance of Karnail Singh who had come out of Anr. room of the same house on hearing the noise over-powered " the accused and succeeded in snatching away the bhaga and putting- him in chains as before.

The earliest medical examination of the accused, so far as we can know from the judicial record, was conducted by Dr. P. L. Bedi, Civil Surgeon Bhatinda. The doctor kept the Appellant under observation from 1-8-1951 to 25-8-51. Examined as a prosecution witness before the committing Magistrate on 31-8-51 he stated that the accused had a. deranged brain for which he was being medically treated to jail and that ho was not fit to make: his defence. The case was, therefore, adjourned. The inquiry proceedings were started on 1-11-51 when the doctor reported and also made a statement that the accused had greatly improved and become fit to make his defence. "For the purposes of an inquiry u/s 465, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused was placed under the observation of Dr. Sood, Civil Surgeon, Bha-'' tinda from 19th March to 17th April, J952. During this period the accused was found to be ''free from any congenita! or sexual defect'' and the doctor opined that he was lit Lo make his defence.

Before the committing Magistrate the accused admitted that he had indicted a bhala blow. to Kundha Singh and stated that he did so because Kundha Singh dubbed him as a lunatic and kept him in confinement. At the trial also he did not deny the char age. To some of the questions put to him he gave irrational and irrelevant answers and also talked absurdity.

The question whether the case of the Appellant falls within Section 84, Penal Code is to be decided in the light of the evidence described above. In addition, we are told that ever since the accused was brought from Dabhwali he was kept chained because he often became violent and his remaining at-large was regarded at hazardous for the safety of the members of his family and other villagers who happened to go near him. During this period he used to talk incoherently and continued shouting "Mach geyalsargeya". For several days he did not take any food and would not accept anything to drink from his relations because of a delusion that they were all out to kill him by administering poison. He threw away the bread meant for him to dogs and crows. His affections for his near relatives were changed into dislike and hatred, so much so that on once having been released he assaulted his own mother for no fault of hers. He had had no sleep for a week preceding the occurrence. He had no motive whatsoever for committing the offence, on the other hand it is alleged that he was very affectionate to his uncle and the two lived together in one and the same house. There is no evidence that he tried to escape arrest or to run away after committing the crime.

Shree Chetan Dass, learned Counsel for the State, while not disputing the correctness of any of these facts, urged that they were not sufficient to prove that the cognitive faculties of the Appellant''s mind had been impaired to such an extent that he was ''non compos mentis'' at the time the offence was committed, in particular, he pointed out that the fact that the Appellant broke his shackles, took out a spear from a heap of fodder in the adjacent room and did not easily give way to the persons who tried to deprive him of the weapon of offence, connotes deliberation. Counsel referred us to the evidence of M. Beant Singh H.C. to the effect that Ujagar Singh remained in his charge in the judicial lock-up at Mansa for about 20 days and during this period he behaved like a normal man and did not exhibit any symptom of insanity. Reliance has also been placed on the evidence of Dr. A.H. Sood, Civil Surgeon, Faridkot and that of Randhir Singh H.C. attached to District Jail Faridkot, recorded in the enquiry instituted by the trial judge u/s 465, Code of Criminal Procedure. This evidence, however, relates to a period more than a year and a quarter after the occurrence and is to the effect that at the time of their examination and observation that prisoner was capable of understanding the proceedings at the trial and making his defence. This can hardly be taken into account or be helpful in deciding the point in question, for the simple reason that lapse of time or treatment in jail might have had a salutary effect on the condition of his brain. Little or no reliance can be placed on the deposition of M. Beant Singh because he does not support his evidence, given more than 16 months after, by any document or note prepared or made by him at the time to which his observations related. The fact that the Appellant got himself released from captivity or took out the spear from the fodder is not inconsistent with his having done it in a fit of insanity or under the delusion to which he was subjected. From this alone it cannot necessarily be inferred that he realized or was capable of realising that he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. As already observed there is no evidence that the accused offered any resistance or tried to escape when the witnesses tried to deprive him of the spear or to detain him.

The state of mind of the prisoner at the time he committed the offence could hardly be proved by any direct evidence and it is only a matter of inference from his previous, contemporaneous and subsequent acts and other relevant evidence as to the unsoundness of his mind. The determination of the question, therefore, depends upon the circumstances of each case. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel are distinguishable. In - Narain Sahi Vs. Emperor, deliberation of the accused in fetching the axe, his threat to a witness if he intervened, his closing the door behind him before he committed the crime, his running away thereafter and his anxiety to wash his blood-stained clothes etc. all combined together were regarded as sufficient to rebut the inference that the apparently motiveless murder was committed when he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. Moreover, within four days of the occurrence in this case the. culprit was put under the observation of a doctor and the latter found nothing which could lead him to suppose that the accrued was of unsound mind.

Similarly in Pancha Vs. Emperor, the conduct of the accused in selecting an opportune time for the attack, his aiming all the blows at the head of the victim and his running away from the spot as soon as an alarm was raised indicated deliberation and his knowledge that what he had done was wrong. The only evidence; in support of the accused''s plea in this case was that he very occasionally had fits of insanity, but the Civil Surgeon who examined the accused next day after the occurrence, was not satisfied that he was insane, and neither the committing Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge, on watching the behaviour of the accused, suspected that he was really insane. In - ''Jalla v. Emperor'' AIR 1931 Lah 278 (C) accused''s running away from the field where his wife was done to death, and on going to the village reproaching his aunt for rendering assistance in the elopment of his wife and attacking her as well afforded strong indication of the existence of .consciousness in his mind that he had done what was wrong. Infidelity of the wife supplied motive for the murder. There was no evidence of previous Insanity, and the accused acted as a normal man for some hours after the incident, it was only after the expiry of more than 24 hours that he developed signs of insanity. Section 84 was not held to be applicable because it is the mental condition at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, which determines the question and not the state of,mind which developes sometime later.

I would agree with the learned Counsel that the legal conception of insanity is different from the medical conception, in the former case it has further to be proved that the insanity is of a degree that, because of it, the man is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. To get benefit of Section 84 Penal Code it is for the accused to prove that at the time of committing the act his cognitive faculties were impaired to that extent. But in order to" find out whether the accused was by reason of Unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law, a Court need not look for such a plea having been raised by the accused or the evidence examined by him in defence, it may equally rely on what is elicited from the prosecution witnesses as well as on the circumstantial evidence consisting of his condition antecedent and subsequent to the commission of the crime and also on surrounding circumstances including an absence of any motive.

Without fear of repetition I must say that here the prosecution case itself consistently is that the accused was not only insane but was violent too, and for that reason he was constantly kept in chains for more than two weeks preceding the incident. On once having been released he assailed his own mother without rhyme or reason. He did not take food for full one week, but threw it away to dogs and crows and had no sleep during this period. He not only lost affections for his near and dear ones but got into the delusion that they were all after his life. On the fateful day he somehow got himself released and all of a sudden speared his own uncle who was quite affectionate to him and to attack whom he had absolutely no motive. He did not try to run away or escape thereafter. In view of all this we are inclined to think that the Appellant committed the offence without realising the nature of the act or knowing that what he case doing was contrary to law. This frame of mind "was undoubtedly brought about by insanity.

While holding that Ujagar Singh Appellant caused the death of Kundha Singh by spearing him in the neck, we are of opinion that the Appellant is entitled to the protection of Section 84, Penal Code. We consequently accept his appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. u/s 471, Code of Criminal Procedure we direct that the Appellant shall continue to remain in safe custody in the jail in which he is now confined until further orders by the State Government. A copy of this order be sent to the Government for necessary action.

Gurnam Singh, J.

I agree.