If Mental Illness is Accepted, Custody can be given to another

Balu Ganpath Koshire vs. State of Maharashtra

Filed under: Section 84, 302 of Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Balu Ganpat Koshire
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Citation: MANU/MH/0015/1983; Decided on 28.04.1983
Court: In the High Court of Bombay
Judge: HH Kantharia and SC Pratap

An appeal against the order of the Sessions Court convicting and sentencing Balu Ganpat Koshire to imprisonment for life for murder.

Facts

The accused, Balu Ganpat Koshire was married to Mira and had a four-year-old son named Sandip. On the day of the incident, Koshire, his wife and son had returned from a month's stay at his sister Hirabai's place.

In the evening, when Mira and Sandip were sitting near the field with Devki Dalvi and other people, Koshire came there and took Mira and Sandip inside the house. Soon after, Devki Dalvi and the other people sitting outside heard Mira's cries from the house and Devki went up and knocked on the door.

On receiving no response, she sent some young boys who climbed up, entered through the roof and opened the door from inside. Koshire emerged from there with only a bloodstained pajama; they found Mira and Sandip lying in a pool of blood with injuries on their bodies.

Koshire was charged with murder and was later arrested. Koshire pleaded insanity claiming protection of Section 84 IPC. It was argued on his behalf that the proceedings should be postponed till he was capable of making his defense. He was then admitted to the Mental Hospital at Thane and kept under observation for more than three weeks.

The report indicated that he was not found to be of unsound mind and the Court immediately resumed trial. His plea being negated by the Sessions Court, Koshire was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Koshire made an appeal against this order to the High Court.

Observations made by the Court

The Court observed that although the Trial Court did postpone the proceedings till Koshire's medical examination, they did not investigate the issue of the state of his mental balance. They also did not record any findings regarding his mental condition and the perceived capacity to defend himself.

The Court observed that this was a vital gap on the part of the Trial Court making the trial invalid. Examining the evidence of Koshire's past history, the Court opined that it was not indicative of the behavior of a normal person. One of witnesses stated that Koshire was taken to Bombay for treatment.

The witness who was in Bombay at the time took Koshire to a psychiatrist where he was subsequently hospitalized and treated with anti-psychotic drugs and electro-convulsive therapy for schizophrenia. This observation was supported by a psychiatrist at Nasik. He stated that Koshire was seeking treatment from him for paranoid schizophrenia but there was no follow-up afterwards.

The Court observed that the credentials of both experts were beyond doubt. Apart from the medical testimony, Koshire's sister Hirabai also related several instances of his behavior that were indicative of a mental disorder.

Finally the Court drew attention to a point made on behalf of Koshire - that the recording of confession had been postponed as many as seven times in the Trial Court. It was pointed out that confession being the foundation of a conviction; it is likely that the reason for this was that the Court was not satisfied with Koshire state of mind at the appointed time.

On the basis of the evidence, the Court concluded that Koshire was of unsound mind at the time of committing the act and therefore incapable of comprehending the nature of the act.

Held: The appeal was therefore allowed, acquitting Koshire. Koshire's eldest brother had filed an affidavit requesting that he be allowed to take his brother's custody. The Court ordered that Koshire's brother be allowed to take his custody and produce him before inspection officers as and when the State Government deemed necessary.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 84 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Cases Referred:

  • Ratanlal vs. State of MP, AIR 1971 SC 778: 1971 Cri LJ 654
  • Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563: 1964(2) Cri LJ 472
  • Jai Lal vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1969 SC 15: 1969 Cri LJ 259

Top

Vishwanath vs. State of Karnataka

Filed under: Sections 318, 329, 330, & 331 of Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 84 of Indian Penal Code
Appellant: Vishwanath & another
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Citation: ILR 2004 KAR 2828
Court: In High Court of Karnataka
Judges: SR Bannurmath & M Shantanagoudar

Vishwanath was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and assault by the Sessions Court. He went on appeal to the High Court of Karnataka against this order.

Facts

Sheshagiri Nayak had two sons Vishwanath and Ashok. One day Vishwanath was plucking guavas from a tree in the yard of his father house, when his brother, Ashok objected to his plucking the raw fruits.

This enraged Vishwanath and he killed his brother with a sickle; when his father and Krishna Paduranga Shanbag, a neighbour tried to stop him, Vishwanath assaulted them as well causing serious injuries.

Following this, Paduranga went to the police station and lodged an oral complaint. A while later Vishwanath personally took the investigation team to the place the weapon had been kept. Here Ashok's body was also recovered and sent for autopsy. A charge sheet was then filed against him.

The Sessions Court found that Vishwanath was not able to speak or hear properly and that he would talk to himself. He was referred to the District Surgeon Karwar for clinical examination and evaluation. The District Surgeon then referred Vishwanath for examination by a psychiatrist at the Mental Hospital at Dharwad with directions approved by the court.

According to the psychiatrist, Vishwanath was suffering from mental retardation with schizophrenic features. The Sessions Court thus found him unable to understand the trial and remanded him to the custody of the Mental Hospital for further treatment directing them to submit periodic improvement reports.

Vishwanath was sent to the mental hospital in Dharward for treatment on several occasions. There was no improvement reported for 22 years by the Mental Hospital. The Mental Hospital reports added that Vishwanath was still not in a condition to face the trial or answer questions.

The Sessions Court however, went ahead with the trial and found Vishwanath guilty of murder and assault and sentenced him to life imprisonment and simple imprisonment for three years. The Sessions Court then referred the case to the High Court under Section 318 to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As Vishwanath had no lawyer to represent him, the Court provided legal aid.

Observations made by the High Court

The Court noted that the reference of the case was incorrectly made. Referring to Section 318, it was observed that such reference could only make if the Court established that 'the accused' was unable to understand the proceedings for reasons other than unsoundness of mind.

In this case, however, Vishwanath could not withstand the trial for two reasons - he was deaf and dumb as well as suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness. The question was whether a person who was not in a position to understand the trial for reasons other than unsoundness of mind, be referred to the High Court.

On this point the court clarified two issues:

  1. If the accused was found capable of understanding the proceeding of the court, then the Trial Court could proceed but,
  2. If during the proceedings the accused were found guilty then the Trial Court would have to report to the High Court to pass an appropriate order before passing sentence.

Taken in this light the Court found the act of the Trial Court of referring the case after passing the sentence, erroneous under the law. The Court also noted that the step taken by the Trial Court towards referring Vishwanath for treatment to the Mental Hospital,

Dharwad; and of adjourning the trial periodically to receive notification on his mental condition was correct. However, the Trial Court had decided to proceed despite the report from the Mental Hospital that Vishwanath was not mentally fit to withstand trial.

The Court observed that this action of the Trial Court as "totally illegal"; and the Trial Court opined that it should have proceeded only after Vishwanath was cured. Therefore, the entire trial was of no value as it had been conducted while Vishwanath was mentally unsound and therefore unable to understand the proceedings.

In order to evaluate Vishwanath's current mental condition, the Court directed him to be evaluated and assessed at NIMHANS, Bangalore. According to Professor and Head, and Deputy Medical Superintendent, Department of Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Vishwanath was found to be suffering from schizophrenia and was recommended sheltered care with regular medicatio

A poor prognosis was predicted. The report also indicated that Vishwanath was not fit enough to face the trial. The Court observed that the way forward would be to remand Vishwanath for a fresh trial. However, this was not found to be feasible for an important reasons - Vishwanath had spent almost 24 years in the mental hospital without any significant improvement.

Further, a poor prognosis was predicted by NIMHANS in a subsequent evaluation, indicating that it was unlikely that Vishwanath's mental condition would improve. And finally, the moot point was that by this time Vishwanath was already more than 60 years of age.

The Court also responded to the evidence provide by the prosecution regarding a confession Vishwanath had made to a hotel owner and a boatman whose boat he used. The prosecution contended that Vishwanath was of sound mind and hence aware of the nature of the act.

Investigating the evidence provided by the Court opined that it considered it improbable that Vishwanath could make an extra judicial confession in view of his physical and mental handicap. The court added that it was the figment of the investigating agency's imagination.

Further, there were discrepancies in the nature of evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, it was set aside. With regard to the issue of burden of proving insanity, there was sufficient evidence on the basis of the evidence of provided as well as the medical reports to establish that Vishwanath was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Therefore, the Court established that Vishwanath was mentally unsound even at the time of committing the act and that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or its consequences.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court was set aside. As there was no one to look after him, the Court observed that an alternate arrangement had to be made and directed a Non Government Organization in Bangalore to take Vishwanath in for further treatment.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Queen Express vs. Somir Bowra and Somir Baba, ILR CAL 27 1900
  • Govind Ramachandra Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cri LJ 4186
  • Kuttappan vs. State of Kerala, 1986 Cri LJ 271

Top