The Gauhati High Court passed a judgement on 26th June 2022 to rescue of a husband who is of unsound mind and was awarded life sentence in connection to murder of his wife. This was seen in the case of Zakir Hussain vs. The State of Assam & Anr, Case No. Crl.A./376/2019 the Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Malasri Nandi was adjudicating upon an appeal to this regard challenging conviction U/S 302 IPC.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the present appeal, the learned trial Court has held that the accused was guilty of committing the murder of his wife & accordingly, convicted him U/S 302 of the IPC. The appellant did not take the plea of insanity before the trial court. Though, in the course of the pendency of the appeal before the HC, the appellant as applicant, had filed a separate application with a prayer to suspend the jail sentence, release him on bail & also to direct the learned trial court to verify the psycho condition of the appellant in terms of Sec 391 CrPC
The appellant had hacked his wife Manjura Bibi on her neck with a dao & afterwards he tried to commit suicide. The father of the victim lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, of the police station that the appellant, who had got married to his deceased daughter, about 10 years back, used to harass & torture her by demanding money.
This case was going on before the Trail Court. Wherein the appellant made the confessional statement U/S 164 of CRPC. On the evidence brought on record as well as the confessional
statement of the accused the learned trial Court has held that the accused was guilty of committing the murder of his wife & accordingly, convicted him U/S 302 of the IPC. The learned trial Court had, though, acquitted the accused/appellant in respect of the charge framed U/S 309 of the IPC
The appellant was convicted U/S 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life & also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
It would be relevant to note here-in that the appellant did not take the plea of insanity before the trial court. Though, in the course of the pendency of the appeal before the HC, the appellant as applicant, had filed a separate application being I.A. to suspend the jail sentence, release him on bail & also to direct the learned trial court to verify the psycho condition of the appellant in terms of Sec 391 CrPC.
The HC based on the above constituted three member Medical Board & the applicant was examined by the Medical Board headed by the Superintendent of Dhubri Civil Hospital. The report submitted by the Medical Board goes to show that the applicant was a known patient of “Schizophrenia” & was taking medicine which includes anti-psychiatric drugs.
The HC then directed the Trail Court under by U/Ss 311 r/w 391 of the CrPC to record evidence of the accused/ appellant & afterwards transmit the records. It was in the course of the recording of evidence by Trail Court U/S 311 r/w 391 it was found that around the year 2010, the appellant had visited Doctor for the treatment of his psycho unstableness & was afterwards, hospitalized at the Rahman Hospital at Guwahati.
From all the contentions of the Learned Council for the Appellant it could be stated that the appellant was agonizing from psycho unsoundness before the incidence, in the course of & even after the incidence. The opinion of the Medical Board also underpins such a conclusion. There are adequate symptoms demonstrating some form of “psychiatric disorder” akin to “bipolar disorder” suffered by the accused/ appellant even at the time of the incident which could have divested the appellant of his ability of thinking & judgment.
Sec 84 of the IPC lays down the outcome that would follow in case of a person agonizing from unsoundness of mind is facing a criminal charge.
High Court’s Observation
In this case the court observed that there was a failure by the investigating agency, & later by the trial Court, to thoroughly examine the available materials resulted in the Appellant being denied the opportunity to establish his plea of defence of unsoundness of mind U/S 84 IPC.
As regard to the facts of this case, appellant is responsible for the death of his wife Manjuara Bibi by unsoundness get along her in the neck with a ‘dao’. Though, the appellant has also succeeded in establishing, by preponderance of probability that he was agonizing from “unsoundness of mind” not only before & after the happening but also at the time of the incident which was of such nature that it can be cited to as “legal insanity”.
The appellant has succeeded in creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of this court that he was in all probability agonizing from “psycho un-soundness” at the time of the happening, which was of such a degree that he was unable to understand the outcome of his actions. There are necessary circumstances so at bring this case within the ambit of sec 84 of IPC which has been cogently established by the appellant.
JUDGEMENT
The court after having held the above cited to the provision of Sec 335 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure to be adopted when a person is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind as laid down in Sec 334 of the Cr.P.C.
The court has acquitted the appellant from the charge brought U/S 302 of the IPC on the ground of “psycho unsoundness”. Though the court did not order the release of the appellant rather it directed the appellant be detained in safe custody, in such a place & in such a manner, as the learned trial court may think fit & proper so as to eliminate the potential threat to the life of any person(s) living in his close proximity. The learned trial court is also granted liberty to consider application, if any, filed by a near relative or friend of the appellant U/S 335(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY YAKSHU JINDAL.
