Read Judgment
In the present appeal, the learned trial Court has held that the accused was guilty of committing the murder of his wife and accordingly, convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant did
not take the plea of insanity before the trial court. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the high Court, the appellant as applicant, had filed a separate application with a prayer to suspend the jail sentence, release him on bail and also to direct the learned trial court to verify the mental condition of the appellant in terms of Section 391 CrPC
The appellant had hacked his wife Manjura Bibi on her neck with a dao and thereafter 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 and torture her by demanding money.
In the present appeal, the learned trial Court has held that the accused was guilty of committing the murder of his wife and accordingly, convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant did
not take the plea of insanity before the trial court. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the high Court, the appellant as applicant, had filed a separate application with a prayer to suspend the jail sentence, release him on bail and also to direct the learned trial court to verify the mental condition of the appellant in terms of Section 391 CrPC
The High Court based on the above constituted three member Medical
Board and 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” and was taking medicine which includes
anti-psychiatric drugs.
The high court then directed the Trail Court under by under sections 311 r/w 391 of the CrPC to record evidence of the accused/ appellant and thereafter transmit the records. It was during the recording of evidence by Trail Court under section 311 r/w 391 it was found that around the year 2010, the appellant had visited Dr. for the treatment of his mental unstableness and was thereafter, 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 suffering from mental unsoundness
before the incidence, during and even after the
incidence. The opinion of the Medical Board also supports such a
conclusion. There are sufficient 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
denuded the appellant of his ability of thinking and judgment.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the consequences that
would follow in case of a person suffering from unsoundness of mind is
facing a criminal charge. Section 84 is reproduced
herein below :-
“84. Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which
is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that he is doing that is either wrong or contrary to law.”
High Court’s Observation
In this case the court observed that there was a failure by the
investigating agency, and 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 under Section 84 IPC.
As regard to the facts of this case, appellant is responsible for the
death of his wife Manjuara Bibi by hacking her in the neck with a
‘dao’. However, the appellant has also succeeded in establishing, by
preponderance of probability, that he was suffering from “ unsoundness
of mind” not only before and after the occurrence but also at the time
of the incident which was of such nature that it can be
referred 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 suffering from “
mental un-soundness” at the time of the occurrence, which was of
such a degree that he was unable to understand the consequences of his
actions. There are necessary circumstances so at bring this case within
the ambit of section 84 of IPC which has been
cogently established by the appellant.
The court after having held the above referred to the provision of Section 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 Section 334 of the Cr.P.C.
The court has acquitted the appellant from the charge brought under section 302 of the IPC on the ground of “mental unsoundness” . however the court did not order the release of the appellant
rather it directed the appellant be detained in safe custody, in such a place and in such a manner, as the learned trial court may think fit and 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 under Section 335(1)(b) of the
Cr.P.C.
CASE TITLE: ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
CASE DETAILS: Crl.A./376/2019
CORAM: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Malasri Nandi
CASE DETAILS: Crl.A./376/2019
CORAM: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Malasri Nandi
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments