He was in such a companydition that if he is sitting will remain sitting.
The prosecution case is that on January 22, 1965, the appellant set fire to the grass lying in the khalyan of Nemichand at the time of the setting of the sun.
These facts were within the knowledge of the police and we should have expected that the prosecution would lead evidence regarding his companydition during this time.
to your letter No.
His children used to lie hungry outside.
In cross examination it was brought out that prior to the setting of fire the accused was neither got admitted in the government hospital number any report was lodged in the police station.
He further stated that on the day of the incident the appellant did number allow anybody to enter life house and had put a lock on the house and his children took their food outside, and the accused did number talk to anybody.
Sir, Ratanlal Prisoner was kept under observation as in door patient during this time.
was examined by me.
On March 29, 1965, Dr. B. Shah.
The Trial Court also mentioned that Moolchand, P.W. 3, Madora, P.W. 4, and Dharma, P.W. 6, admitted that the appellant remained in the khalyan throughout the period that the grass was burning till the chowkidar took him to thana and did number utter a word and did number try to run away.
He used to jump in the river also.
He used to run away wherever he liked.
There is numberevidence either to indicate as to his companydition from the time of his arrest to the time when his case was referred for medical examination.
He also relied on the fact that the appellants khalayan adjoined the khalayan which was set on fire by him and if the appellant had been sane he would number have taken the risk of having his own khalayan burnt, which was most likely.
The accused was arrested on January 23, 1965, and he remained in police custody till February 2, 1965, when it was found that the accused needed medical examination, and accordingly the District Magistrate ordered that he be medically examined.
He also relied on the certificates issued by the doctors, mentioned above.
On April 28, 1965, another report was given that he was still a person of unsound mind in terms of Indian Lunancy Act, 1912, but was better though still companyfused, and further that treatment was being companytinued and it may take 4 to 6 weeks more for recovery.
He does number appear to be deaf or dumb, but is mentally retarded.
On being asked why he did it the accused said I burnt it and do whatever you want.
Further, the police made it impossible for the appellant to prove his mental companydition at the time of the incident by keeping him in their custody from January 23 to February 2, 1965, number having him examined and number sending him to judicial custody earlier where he would have been examined by the jail doctor.
He did number speak to anybody on that day.
The report is based on the following facts observed here Remains depressed.
The witness, however, admitted that the accused had number been taken to Government hospital.
He further found support in the absence of motive for the crime.
He was caught at the spot while setting fire.
He used to set fire in his clothes also.
He used to enter the house of anybody.
The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of Shyamlal, D.W. 1, Than Singh, D.W. 2, and the behavior of the accused on that day came to the companyclusion that the accused was insane.
He used to lock his house.
He further stated that prior to this incident the accused was being taken to Bhopal after tying him for the treatment of mind.
He is number dangerous and or violent by reason of Lunancy and thus unfit to be at large.
No cross examination was directed to ascertain the nature of his illness or to bring out that he was otherwise sane.
Another witness, Than Singh, D.W. 2, the appellant is his maternal uncle stated that the appellant used to do whatever he thought.
If he is to go then he will go and if he wishes to fall in the river then he will fall.
Such was the companyditions of his mind that he used to set fire in his own clothes and house.
He should be referred to Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Gwalior, for expert opinion.
Psychiatrist and Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Gwalior, reported as follows This is to certify that Shri Ratanlal s o Kishanlal who has been kept under observation in this hospital from 18 3 1965 to 29 3 1965 is a person of unsound mind, in terms of Indian Lunancy Act 1912.
295 dated 8 2 1965.
The High Court, with respect, erred in differing from the Trial Court.
On February 20, 1965, V.S. Vaidya, Assistant Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Vidisha, reported to the Jailor, Sub Jail, Vidisha, as follows Subject, In Ref.
The defence also led evidence as to his companydition before the incident in question.
Shyamlal, D.W. 1, son in law of the appellant stated that the accused was number feeling well for 2 3 years.
On February 22, 1965, Y.D. Kamran, Civil Surgeon, Vidisha, reported as follows Shri Ratanlal, undertrial.
On the day of occurrence the companydition of the accused was worst.
The only point involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant was a person of unsound mind within Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of the incident.
M. Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, allowing the appeal of the State and companyvicting the appellant for having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 435, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year.
He was also taken to Bhavera but the accused did number improve.
