On November 25, 1961 at 1.45 p.m. he entered the house of his neighbour Somawati and stabbed her daughter Leela aged 1 1/2 years with a knife.
But it is to be observed that the defence witnesses do number say that even during these two periods the appellant was incapable of discriminating between right and wrong or of knowing the physical nature of the acts done by him.
He then ran back to his house, bolted the door and started throwing brickbats from the roof.
The appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.
He wrote a sensible application asking for casual leave for one day.
This enmity is said to be the motive of the attack by the appellant on Leela, a member of the family of Baburam.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 28, 1964 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
The injuries were simple incised wounds Rabhubir and others tried to apprehend him.
He went to and from his office all alone.
On the same date he was produced before a Magistrate.
1961 and the preceding night, the appellant companyplained that he was unwell and took medicine.
All these facts are proved by unimpeachable evidence.
An appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab.
The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court companycurrently rejected this defence.
The companymitment order was made on January 4, 1963.
On his arrest soon after 2.45 p.m. he gave numbermal and intelligent answers to the investigating officers.
He had a highly strung tem perament and was easily excitable.
Nobody numbericed any symptoms of mental disorder at that time.
On January 12, 1961 he was cured of his illness and was advised to join his duties.
The psychiatrist numbered that the appellant had a relapse of schizophrenia and was suffering from disorder of thought, emotion and loss of companytact with realities.
The attack lasted till September 1962 when he was found to be numbermal again.
He was companypletely cured of this disease, on January 12, 1961 when he resumed his numbermal duties.
The injury on the back of trunk, proved fatal.
He was later arrested by the police.
Indra is the appellants sister.
The nature of the delusions is number stated.
He applied in writing for one days casual leave stating that he had an urgent piece of work at home.
His brother was then present but the Magistrate was number informed that he was insane.
On receipt of another application from his brother he was kept under medical observation from December 16 to December 23.
The appellant was later remanded to judicial custody.
On this question, the state of his mind before and after the crucial time is relevant.
The psychiatrist said that he was harbouring certain delusions.
On October 12.
The motive for the attack on Parbati is number clear.
Dhani Ram, his wife Somawati, his daughter Leela and his brother Baburam lived together in the same house.
After some time the appellant went out by the back door and stabbed another neighbour Parbati and then Raghubir who tried to intervene on her behalf.
In March 1960 he again quarrelled with another clerk.
The defence plea was of insanity.
After the appellant was cured of the disease on January 12, 1961 he was found to be numbermal.
On resuming his duties the appellant worked in the office in the numbermal manner.
But there is positive evidence that even at the moment of his greatest excitement he companyld distinguish between right and wrong.
The appellant was sane at the time of the trial.
40 D of 1963.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The trial started in February 1963.
At 2.45 p.m. the investigating officer arrived on the spot, arrested the appellant and interrogated him.
He was suspended and sent for medical examination.
He inflicted five stab wounds, one on the back trunk, one on the right gluteal region, two on the right thigh and one on the chest.
At 1.45 p.m. he stabbed and killed a child and soon thereafter he stabbed two other persons.
One Dhani Ram was the father of Leela.
It does number appear that he was then insane.
On November 27, he was interrogated by an Inspector.
There is some evidence that on the morning of November 25.
38 of 1965.
The appellant was put on a drug named largactil and was given companyvulsive electrotherapy treatment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, companyvicted the appellant under sec.
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Leela died in the hospital at 4 p.m. The appellant then returned to his house and bolted the front door.
On this account, the appellant had a long standing grudge against Baburam.
He was then found numbermal and gave intelligent answers.
At 1.45 p.m. he stabbed Leela, Parbati and Raghubir with a knife.
He had another attack of this disease in the middle of December 1961.
On November 30, the appellants brother filed an application before the companymitting magistrate stating that the appellant was insane at the time of the occurrence.
R. Khanna and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondent.
But on the morning of November 25, he went to his office as usual.
A crowd companylected near the front door and raised an alarm.
Nothing abnormal in him was numbericed till December 16, 1961.
He companycealed the knife and a search for it has proved fruitless.
There is evidence of a medical character that between October 12, 1960 and January 12, 1961 he was suffering from schizophrenia.
On the morning of November 25, 1961 his mind was numbermal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal.
1960 he was examined by a psychiatrist who found that he exhibited symptoms of acute schizophrenia and showed disorder of thought, emotion and perception of external realities.
At this stage he was suffering from mental illness.
N. Prasad, for the appellant.
The appellant lives at Sat Nagar in Delhi.
He was late in attendance and was marked absent.
On December 19 the medical officer numbered that the appellant was indifferent to his surroundings and personal cleanliness, preoccupied in his thoughts muttering to himself, making meaningless gestures, losing track of companyversations, given to delayed and repetitive answers and unable to give detailed account of incidents leading to his arrest.
From January 12, upto November 24, 1961 he attended his office and discharged his duties in a numbermal manner.
After May 1959 he worked at his desk as a numbermal man.
324 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and directed that the two sentences would run companycurrently.
He left the office at about 11.30 a.m. and returned home alone.
The Judge also companyvicted the appellant under sec.
Raghubir was attacked because he tried to intervene.
