1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2006 Prakash Nayi @ Sen, S/o Hari Ram Sen, R/o Village Hitonpura, Bhivani Police Station, Haryana, presently lodged in Central Jail Aguada, Bardez-Goa. ... Appellant versus State of Goa (Through learned P.P.). ... Respondent Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 2nd June, 2008 JUDGMENT(Per N. A. Britto, J.) This appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 I.P.C. by Judgment/Order dated 25-7-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao. 2 2. As the story of the prosecution goes, Damodar General Stores belongs to Ramkumar Sen/PW6 who is of about 80 years of age. The accused is the grandson of the brother of the said Ramkumar Sen/PW6. The said stores are situated near St. Sebastian Church(formerly known as Pandava Chapel). Ramkumar Sen/PW6 had lost his wife and there was no one to look after him and had decided to dispose of his business as well as the said stores/shop, when Pramila, the deceased, approached him through his friend and started working for him for preparing food and other miscellaneous works and she gradually prevailed upon the said Ramkumar Sen/PW6 not to dispose of the shop and he was impressed by her, and as she had lost her parents at a young age and had no relatives, he decided to adopt her and left a will in her favour in respect of the said business. 3. The accused who was residing in his native place along with his father visited Ramkumar/PW6 on two occasions and again came for the third time 2/3 months prior to the incident and requested him to keep him along with him as he was reluctant to go back to his native village, and, the deceased who also knew the accused prevailed upon him to keep the accused with them since he was one of his family members and for about a month everything went on smoothly and the accused and the deceased looked after the business and the house in a proper manner and then both convinced him that he should go to visit his village and pilgrim places and as such he went to visit Pushkar in Rajasthan and then to his village and during that period he kept contact with the accused and the deceased 3 who informed him that everything was going on smoothly. 4. The accused was charged and tried with the allegation that on 14-5-2004 at about 6.00 a.m. in Damodar General Stores at Aquem, Margao, the accused committed murder of Ms. Pramila Naik alias Sen intentionally or knowingly assaulting her with an iron latch/plate on her face and head. The accused pleaded not guilty. 5. In the course of the trial, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. 6. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. P. P. Singh, the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused has made two submissions. Firstly, learned Counsel has contended that there was no evidence to convict the accused. Secondly, learned Counsel has contended that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and committed the offence by reason of unsoundness of mind and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. 7. As far as the first submission is concerned, in our view, there is ample evidence on record both direct and circumstantial to prove that it is the accused who assaulted Pramila, the deceased with the iron latch. 8. Digamber Amonkar/PW2 is an eye witness. As per him, at about 6.00 a.m. on 14-5-2004 he had gone to buy milk from a milk booth situated near 4 the said Church and the same was closed. He stated that he heard screaming sound from the shop which was near the said milk booth and when he rushed there he noticed that one girl was lying on the floor and one boy was assaulting her with an iron plate in his hand which is normally used for locking the door of the shop. He stated that he tried to go near the said girl but at that time the said boy rushed towards him with the said iron plate in his hand and therefore he went behind the said milk booth. He stated that he saw the said boy continuously assaulting the girl on her head and there was blood around. He identified the accused as the said boy. Earlier, he had also identified the accused on 7-8-2004 at the Identification Parade held by Shri S. B. Faria, Special Judicial Magistrate/PW13. He further stated that thereafter the accused went up to the bus stop and then returned to the shop and kept the iron plate there and sat down near the bus stop. He further stated that the said girl(deceased) used to stay at the said shop and at times had seen her behind the counter of the said shop. In his cross-examination, on behalf of the accused nothing was brought out so as to discredit his evidence. In our view, there is nothing in his evidence to discard the same. His evidence is consistent and convincing. The learned trial Court has accepted his evidence for the purpose of convicting the accused. 9. The evidence of Digamber Amonkar/PW2 is sufficiently corroborated by Mohammad Usman/PW5 who also stated that apart from being a mechanic he helps his brother in the sale of newspapers at Aquem near the said Church. He stated that the newspapers come for sale at about 6.00 a.m. 5 and he sells papers adjacent to the building which exists near the said Church. He further stated that at about 6.00 a.m. on 14-5-2004 he was placing supplements inside the newspapers when he heard the sound from Damodar Stores which is at a distance of 5 meters from the place of his business and at that time he saw the accused coming out of the said Damodar Stores holding one iron plate used for latching the door. He further stated that blood was noticed on the said iron plate and then the accused went towards the said bakery with the said plate and then returned near the shop and kept the iron plate and went to the bus stop. He stated that the accused was showing his finger towards him. In cross-examination, he denied that he had not seen the accused coming out from his shop with an iron plate in his hand. Joao Gomes/PW1 is another witness who has supported the case of the prosecution. As per him, he has a bakery near the said Church. He stated that he knew Chacha(referring to Ramkumar Sen/PW6) and he also knew the deceased Pramila. He stated that the accused was the son of the brother of the said Chacha and Pramila was brought by the said Chacha as he was not having any issue, as his adopted daughter. According to him, the said Pramila was residing with the said Chacha prior to he filing the said complaint. As far as the present incident is concerned, Joao Gomes/PW1 stated that the said Pramila had come to his bakery at about 5.45 a.m. on 14-5-2004 to collect bread sold in their shop. He stated that immediately thereafter someone came and informed him that the said Pramila was assaulted and he rushed to the shop of the said Chacha where he noticed that the said Pramila was inside the shop and the accused was present holding an iron plate in his hand used for locking the shop. He stated that he asked 6 the accused as to what had happened, whereupon he disclosed that he assaulted the said Pramila. He also stated that the accused was sitting at the bus stop which is just 5 meters away from the shop. According to him, the accused was sitting in the bus stop which is just 5 meters away from the shop of the said Chacha. He also stated that after noticing that the said Pramila was lying on the floor with injuries on her head and blood all around and finding her dead he called for the “Father” from the said Church and informed him about the incident requesting him to inform the Police on phone. There is nothing in his cross-examination even to remotely suggest that he had deposed falsely as regards the incident. He is a neighbour of the said Ramkumar Sen/PW6 where both the deceased and the accused were residing and the admission made by the accused to him is more than sufficient to corroborate the evidence given by the other witnesses, namely Digamber Amonkar/PW2 as well as Mohammad Usman/PW5. In our opinion, prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to prove that it is the accused who assaulted the deceased Pramila. Fr. James Torres/PW16 has confirmed about being informed about the murder in the shop of “Chacha” and he immediately informed the Police about the same on phone. 10. As regards the second contention, the accused examined two witnesses in support of the plea of unsoundness of mind taken by him, namely, Dr. Mary D'Souza/DW1 and Jagdish Prasad/DW2, the paternal uncle of the accused. As per Dr. D'Souza/DW1 who works as a lecturer in Institute of Psychiatric and Human Behaviour, she examined the accused for the first time in 7 September, 2004 and last in February, 2006. According to her, the accused was found to display psychotic features and upon total evaluation he was certified as a case of schizophrenia. According to her, the accused was admitted on 19-9-2005 and continued till 5-11-2005 and during the period of treatment she found that the accused was suffering from chronic schizophrenia and at the same time she stated that the accused had understood the crime attributed to him, though denied by him, and was advised to follow up the treatment upon discharge from time to time. She stated that a patient suffering from schizophrenia would exhibit features of schizophrenia at lucid intervals and not continuously and such a patient would suffer relapse if he discontinued the treatment. 11. Jagdish Prasad/DW2 stated that the accused was residing in the village alone and the accused was normal some times and some times he would remain aloof from others. He further stated that the accused studied upto Xth standard in the village and during the last 3 to 4 years the accused had problems with his sleep and on some occasions he would sleep throughout the night and he would also roam at night and would sleep only after medication. He also stated that he had taken him to a doctor in the city by name Dr. Sharma who after examination of the accused had prescribed medication and the accused was admitted in a local hospital in Haryana. He produced the hospital card which was marked as Exh.149 colly. 8 12. As far as the plea of insanity of the accused is concerned, it appears that it was belatedly taken, and, the best person who could have spoken as regards the same is none other than Ramkumar Sen/PW6 with whom the accused lived for about 2 or 3 months prior to the incident and during this time the accused exhibited no symptoms of schizophrenia. On the contrary, Ramkumar Sen/PW6 in his cross-examination stated that the accused was normally calm and quite and was not involved in any quarrel or fight. His evidence militates against the accused and the plea of insanity taken on his behalf. Joao Gomes/PW1, Digamber Amonkar/PW2 and Mohammad Usman/PW5 also did not speak of any abnormal behaviour of the accused when they reached the scene soon after the incident or otherwise and Dr. Jaiswal/PW10 who examined the accused at about 3.50 p.m. on the same day found that the accused was mentally well. The evidence of Dr. D'Souza/DW1 also does not help the accused because according to her the accused had understood the crime attributed to him which would not have been the case in case the accused was of unsound mind at the time when he committed the offence. The evidence of Jagdish Prasad/DW2 has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court and one of the reasons assigned was that the accused had not examined any of his parents with whom he was residing in his native place. The learned trial Court has observed that the discharge paper only bore the name Prakash without any indication including the address related to the accused. The learned trial Court also noted that Jagdish Prasad/DW2 could not account for any official seal or stamp of the hospital and the signature of the doctor and more particularly that the said papers pertained to the case of the accused. In fact, 9 nothing prevented the accused from summoning and examining the said Dr. Sharma who was stated to have treated the accused. 13. It is well settled that every man is presumed to be sane but that presumption does not apply to a man whose case is governed by Section 84 I.P.C. It is also well settled that the burden to prove insanity, by way of an exception is on the accused and the standard to prove the same is by preponderance of probabilities and it is not of a high degree as is required of the prosecution to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled that anterior, attendant and posterior conduct of the accused is relevant while appreciating the plea under Section 84 I.P.C. as stated in Sankaran v. State(1994 Cri.L.J. 1173) and Bapu v. State of Rajasthan(2007(8) SCC 66). 14. In the latter case, referring to Sheralli Wali Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra(1972 Cri. L. J. 1523) the Apex Court has held that “the mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and children or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was open, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence”. Applying the aforesaid tests it could not be presumed that the accused was suffering from Schizophrenia only because after the commission of offence he did not run away and sat near the bus stop, as contended on behalf of the accused. Different criminals act differently. Some even go and inform the Police, yet others abscond, out of fear of being arrested. 10 There cant be uniform criminal behaviour. 15. The Apex Court in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan(supra) referring to Section 84 I. P.C. has stated that it lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. The Apex Court has further stated that there is no definition of unsoundness of mind in I.P.C. The Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity but the term “insanity” has no precise definition. It is the term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A Court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. The burden of proof rests on an accused to prove his insanity which arises by virtue of Section 105. But it is not so onerous as that upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act with which he is charged. The Apex Court has further held that the mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 I.P.C. as the law contained in that Section is still squarely based on the outdated M' Naughton rules, of 19th Century England. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after 11 the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient. 16. Reverting to the facts of the case, the antecedent, attendant and subsequent conduct or behaviour of the accused does not at all show that the accused was suffering from Schizophrenia at the time of the commission of offence and as such was incapable of knowing his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. That he had understood the nature of the act as deposed to by Dr. D'Souza/DW1 is a circumstance which militates against the plea of insanity. In all probability, the accused developed schizophrenia after his confinement to jail. In the circumstances therefore the second submission on behalf of the Accused also needs to be rejected. 17. Lastly, it has been urged on behalf of the accused that the incident took place at the spur of the moment and therefore this would be a fit case to scale down the conviction to Section 304 I.P.C. We are not inclined to accept this submission, as well. The post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Pujari/PW11 12 shows that the deceased was inflicted with as many as 20 injuries and injury nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 along with corresponding internal injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries from 1 to 10 were collectively sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. Moreover the opinion of Dr. Pujari/PW11 is very clear and the deceased died due to head injury, fractures of multiple facial bones and damage to neck structures due to forceful impacts of blunt and hard object. In other words, the injuries, the weapon and the force with which they were inflicted clearly suggest that the deceased was assaulted with the said iron latch with force from which it can be gathered that the accused intended to cause her death. In the circumstances, this submission also cannot be accepted. 18. We, therefore find there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD