STAFF REPORTER
GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court overturned an order by Court of Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 35/2012, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
The question to be decided by the HC is whether the impugned judgement would be sustainable, keeping in view the fact that the Trial Court had not decided whether the appellant was of unsound mind, despite having a suspicion or apprehension in that regard, as can be seen from the order dated July 18, 2016 passed by the Trial Court.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that an FIR dated March 10, 2012 was submitted before the officer-in-charge, Dokmoka Police Station, by the wife of the deceased, stating that her husband Kamal Basumatary was murdered by the appellant with a spade while he was watching TV in his house at about 4:30 p.m. Pursuant to the FIR, Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 11/2012 under Section 302 IPC was registered. The investigation of the case was initiated, and after concluding the same, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet on finding a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
D.K. Bhattacharyya, counsel for the appellant, submitted that a perusal of the case records and the orders passed during the trial showed that the appellant appeared to be a person of unsound mind. As such, after the testimonies had been recorded, the Trial Court, vide order dated July 18, 2016, made an observation that the appellant seemed to be a person of unsound mind and that the appellant should be examined by medical experts in Diphu Civil Hospital. The counsel for the appellant submitted that no report was made by the medical expert.
The HC said, "We are of the view that though the appellant was the person who killed the deceased with a spade, we cannot say with certainty that the appellant was of sound mind at the time the incident occurred, i.e., it cannot be said that the appellant was capable of understanding the consequences of his action."
It was further stated that, keeping in mind the testimony of the victim's wife, the doctor's advice for "psychiatry consultation," and the trial court's order, the inquiry and trial should have been stopped until a decision had been taken under Section 328/329 CrPC. The HC offered the view that the appellant has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself, as his capability to defend himself had not been decided, and this has occasioned a failure of justice.
Subsequent to the order passed by the HC on August 8, 2023, the Medical Board, consisting of three doctors: Professor of Psychiatric, GMCH, Assistant Professor of Psychiatric, GMCH, and Registrar of Psychiatric, GMCH, made a report dated August 21, 2023, stating that the appellant was examined on August 19, 2023.
Therefore, the HC disposed of the case with the ruling, "As the finding of the Medical Board dated August 21, 2023 is to the effect that the appellant suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, the respondents are directed to release the appellant from jail and produce the appellant before the Mental Health Review Board constituted under Chapter XI of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, who shall then examine the appellant and take a decision with regard to the future course of action to be taken in respect of the appellant in terms of the 2017 Act."
Also Watch: