IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.10 of 1998 Decided on : February 24, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ramesh Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, whereby respondent Ramesh Kumar, who was tried for the offence of attempted murder, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly attempting to kill his Chacha Kashmir Singh (PW-2) and also for the offence of murder of his wife Maya Devi, on 24th February, 1994, has though been convicted of the offence, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted of the offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. State seeks conviction of the respondent for offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, also. 2. Respondent is alleged to have armed himself with a Drat, on 24th February, 1994, in village Dhar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, soon after return from Delhi, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… where he had been working in a factory and to have publicly proclaimed that he would kill seven persons, including PW-2 Kashmir Singh, his Chacha, and his wife Maya Devi (deceased). Then he advanced towards his Chacha PW-2 Kashmir Singh, in a threatening posture. The latter ran for safety, but was chased. He fell and was attacked with Drat by the respondent. When the respondent was still attacking PW-2 Kashmir Singh, some persons, including PW-6 Sarla, came there. PW-6 Sarla and one man prodded the respondent with a bamboo stick from behind, which distracted the respondent and he ran after PW-6 Sarla and other persons accompanying her. Respondent then picked up a Chorsi from the workshop of a blacksmith and allegedly went to his house where he killed his wife Maya Devi. 3. Respondent took the plea of insanity, during the course of trial. Trial Court did not accept his plea. Believing the testimony of Kashmir Singh (PW-2), Sarla (PW-6) and some other witnesses examined by the prosecution, trial Court concluded that the respondent had attempted to murder PW-2 Kashmir Singh and that had Sarla not prodded the respondent with a bamboo stick, he would have probably killed said Kashmir Singh. Consequently, respondent was convicted by the trial Court for offence, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three …3… years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. However, the respondent has been acquitted of the offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with the fining that there is absolutely no evidence, indicating that the respondent was seen entering or exiting his house armed with Drat and Chorsi in his hands. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 5. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court that there is no evidence on record proving the charge of murder. Even though there is no direct evidence that the respondent was seen entering or exiting the house, where deceased Maya Devi was found murdered, on the same very day on which attempt to murder PW-2 Kashmir Singh was made by the respondent, yet there are several circumstances pointing to one and only one hypothesis that Maya Devi was done to death by the respondent and nobody else. 6. It has come in the evidence, per testimony of PW-2 Kashmir Singh, PW-4 Vinay Kumar, PW-5 Gandhi Ram and PW-6 Sarla that the respondent had been proclaiming, while chasing PW-2 Kashmir Singh and hitting him repeatedly with Drat, that he would be killing his wife Maya Devi and brother PW-4 Vinay Kumar and some other persons. Also, there is expert evidence in the form of …4… statement of PW-16 Dr. Puran Chand, who conducted postmortem examination of dead body of Maya Devi, that the fatal injuries, which he observed on the dead body, could have been caused by means of Drat (Ex. P-11) and Chorsi (Ex. P-2), which the respondent per testimony of PW-2 Kashmir Singh, PW-6 Sarla, PW-4 Vinay Kumar, etc. was wielding, while attacking PW-2 Kashmir Singh and proclaiming that he would be killing Maya Devi also. It has also come in the evidence that it was after the death of Maya Devi that the respondent surrendered the aforesaid weapons of offence to his mother Har Dei in a paddy field. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the killing of Maya Devi also took place at the hands of the present respondent and the finding to the contrary, returned by the trial Court, is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the evidence on record. 7. Also, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has not recorded correct finding as to the plea of insanity put up on behalf of the respondent before it. Defence examined a doctor employed in Zonal Hospital, Mandi, namely DW-1 Dr. R.S. Dhatwalia, who proved some OPD slips Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5. As per his testimony and the OPD slips Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5, respondent had been a patient of paranoid schizophrenia and was treated for the disease by him (DW-1 Dr. Dhatwalia), for the first time, in the year 1992. He was found suffering from this disease …5… two months after the incident also. He was examined in April, 1994 (incident took place in February, 1994) by DW-1 Dr. Dhatwalia, per OPD Chit Ex. D-4. Dr. Dhatwalia stated that a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia is prone to hallucinations. It has come in the evidence that on the day of the incident respondent had been brought back from Delhi to his village where the incident took place, by one of his nephews, as he was mentally sick. On return, he ate all bananas and oranges available in his house even without peeling them, per testimony of PW-4 Vinay Kumar. This fact, when seen in the light of the testimony of DW-1 Dr. Dhatwalia, proves or atleast probabilizes the plea of insanity put up by the defence. 8. In view of the abovestated position, we set aside the judgment of the trial court in its entirety and not only uphold the acquittal of the respondent for offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, though for reasons different from those recorded by the trial Court, but also set aside his conviction for offence, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( Surjit Singh ), J February 24, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J