# Ram Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1166
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-22
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 5202 of 2012
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-singh-v-state-of-u-p-49109
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1861-
Section 84 - Onus lies on the accused to
prove that at the time of alleged incident,
due to unsoundness of his mind he was
incapable of knowing the nature of his act
or that what he was doing was either
wrong or contrary to law- Evident from
the medical reports that after the alleged
incident, accused for his mental illness
was treated after the lapse of about seven
and
half
months.
However,
he
was
reported vide paper no. 111 Kha, Exhibit
Kha-1, on 29.01.2000, within the normal
limits of his mental condition. Soon before
and soon after the incident, accused was
not mentally suffering to such an extent
that he could be said to be incapable to
know about the nature and consequences
of his act.

Where the plea of insanity is adopted by the
accused then he has to prove that from before
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1167
the occurrence, during course of the occurrence
and after the same, he was incapable of
understanding the nature and consequences of
his act due to his mental suffering.

Indian Penal Code, 1861- Section 8 -
Section 84 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872- It
appears from the conduct of the accused
that just after the incident, he to screen
himself from legal punishment, knowing
that he has committed an offence, has it
not been so, he would not have tried to
escape from the place of occurrence with
weapon of crime. It is evident that there is
no documentary evidence regrading the
treatment
of
mental
illness
of
the
appellant,
before
or
soon
after
the
incident.

The fact that after committing the offence the
accused tried to escape from the scene of crime
shows that the accused was not suffering from
insanity at the time and after committing the
offence.

Indian Penal Code, 1861- Section 84 - There
is no medical evidence on record to show
that before or soon after the incident,
accused
was
suffering
from
Psychotic
disorder that it could be assumed that
accused was unable to understand the
nature of his act. Further, it has not been
proved that the act itself was result of his
mental disorder. Accused has not been able
to demonstrate, by means of evidence, that
at the time of incident he was influenced by
mental disorder.

Where the accused has failed to discharge the
onus
proving
his
insanity
by
leading
documentary and other evidence, then such
plea of insanity cannot be accepted. (Para 25,
81, 82)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 56,026. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 2007, State vs. Gudda @ Ramman @
Raj kumar @ Jhalla @ Guddu Kol & Ors.,
under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 364, 302,
201 I.P.C. & 14 of D.A.A. Act, Police
Station-Raipura,
District-Chitrakoot,
deserves to be set aside and is hereby set
aside,
accordingly,
all
the
accused/appellants are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them.

103. Appeal is allowed.

104. Appellants/accused No. 1 and 2,
namely Gudda @Rajam @Raj Kumar @
Jhalla @ Guddu Kol and Raghunandan
Pathak, who are on bail need not surrender.
Their
bail
bonds
and
sureties
are
discharged.

105. The appellants no. 3 and 4,
namely, Jiya Lal Kol and Subedar Singh @
Radhey, who are in jail stand acquitted of
the charges against them and shall be
released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case.

106. In view the provisions of Section
347-A Cr.P.C. the appellants no. 3 and 4,
namely Jiya Lal Kol and Subedar Singh @
Radhey, are directed to forthwith furnish
personal bonds in the sum of Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand and two reliable
sureties each in the like amount before the
trial Court (which shall be effective for a
period of six months) to the effect that in
the event of filing of Special Leave Petition
against the instant judgment or for grant of
leave, the appellants on receipt of notice
thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

106. Let a copy of this judgment
along with lower court record be sent back
to the court concerned for immediate
compliance.

107. Office to inform the concerned
Jail
Superintendent
through
C.J.M.
concerned to ensure compliance of the
order.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1166
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Jail Appeal No. 5202 of 2012

Ram Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Chandra Bhushan Tiwari(A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1861-
Section 84 - Onus lies on the accused to
prove that at the time of alleged incident,
due to unsoundness of his mind he was
incapable of knowing the nature of his act
or that what he was doing was either
wrong or contrary to law- Evident from
the medical reports that after the alleged
incident, accused for his mental illness
was treated after the lapse of about seven
and
half
months.
However,
he
was
reported vide paper no. 111 Kha, Exhibit
Kha-1, on 29.01.2000, within the normal
limits of his mental condition. Soon before
and soon after the incident, accused was
not mentally suffering to such an extent
that he could be said to be incapable to
know about the nature and consequences
of his act.

Where the plea of insanity is adopted by the
accused then he has to prove that from before
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1167
the occurrence, during course of the occurrence
and after the same, he was incapable of
understanding the nature and consequences of
his act due to his mental suffering.

Indian Penal Code, 1861- Section 8 -
Section 84 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872- It
appears from the conduct of the accused
that just after the incident, he to screen
himself from legal punishment, knowing
that he has committed an offence, has it
not been so, he would not have tried to
escape from the place of occurrence with
weapon of crime. It is evident that there is
no documentary evidence regrading the
treatment
of
mental
illness
of
the
appellant,
before
or
soon
after
the
incident.

The fact that after committing the offence the
accused tried to escape from the scene of crime
shows that the accused was not suffering from
insanity at the time and after committing the
offence.

Indian Penal Code, 1861- Section 84 - There
is no medical evidence on record to show
that before or soon after the incident,
accused
was
suffering
from
Psychotic
disorder that it could be assumed that
accused was unable to understand the
nature of his act. Further, it has not been
proved that the act itself was result of his
mental disorder. Accused has not been able
to demonstrate, by means of evidence, that
at the time of incident he was influenced by
mental disorder.

Where the accused has failed to discharge the
onus
proving
his
insanity
by
leading
documentary and other evidence, then such
plea of insanity cannot be accepted. (Para 25,
81, 82)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Bapu Gajraj Vs St. of Raj. 2007, Vol.8 SCC 66

2. Sudhakaran Singh Vs St. of Ker. 2010 ,Vol.
10, SCC 582
3. Sherall Walli Mohammad Vs St. of Maha.,
1972 Cr. LJ 1523 (SC)

4. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh & ors,
(2014) 7 SCC 323

5. Sham Sunder Vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731

6. St. of M.P. Vs Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554

7. Ravji Vs St. of Raj., (1996) 2 SCC 175
(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. This Jail Appeal has been filed by
appellant
Ram
Singh,
through
Superintendent,
District
Jail,
Lalitpur,
under section 383 Cr.P.C. against judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 28.3.2011
passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ex
Cadre), Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 44 of
2007, State vs. Ram Singh, arising out of
Case Crime No. 1089 of 2007, under
Section 302 I.P.C., whereby appellant was
convicted for offence punishable under
section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of
payment of fine undergo three years'
additional imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell
are as under:

3. Informant-None Raja, has stated
in the written First Information Report
that his brother Ram Singh was suffering
from mental illness/ disorder, since last
ten years. On 22.03.2007, at around 1
p.m. his wife Smt. Guddi Raja, Badi Raja
w/o appellant Ram Singh, his daughter
and son, aged about 5 and 1 years,
respectively, were present in the house.
All of a sudden appellant-Ram Singh, lost
his mental balance and assaulted all the
aforesaid persons with axe
causing
injuries and all the injured succumbed to
the injuries. 2
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Bodies were lying in the courtyard
of the house and the incident was seen by
many villagers. Appellant-Ram Singh,
while running from the house was caught
by the villagers Narendra Singh, Mulayam
Singh, Mansingh and Govind Das.

5. On the strength of the First
Information Report, case at Crime No.
1089 of 2007, under Section 302 I.P.C.
came to be registered on 22.03.2007, at
Police Station-Kotwali, District- Lalitpur.

6. P.W.-4, Sub Inspector, Kallu
Prasad Yadav, written the First Information
Report, Chik at 2.30 p.m. and he also
entered
the
substance
of
the
First
Information Report in the G.D. No. 33 of
22.03.2007. Investigation was entrusted to
the P.W.-7, N.H. Farooqui, who took the
investigation at the direction of Station
House Officer and reached at the place of
occurrence and saw that dead bodies of
Smt. Guddi Raja w/o Naune Raja, Smt.
Badi Raja w/o Appellant-Ram Singh,
Kumari Mandavi and
Mangal Singh
daughter and son of appellant-Ram Singh,
were lying in the courtyard of the house.
Thereafter, Station House Officer, Kotwali,
Raj Bahadur Sahu and S.I. Shri Ram Ratan
Verma, along with police personnel also
reached on the spot. In the presence of
Panch, inquest reports of the bodies of the
deceased, on the dictation of S.H.O. Raj
Bahadur Sahu, and other necessary papers
in connection with the inquest of the bodies
of the deceased, were prepared by Sub
Inspector N.H.Farooqui.

7. P.W.9-, Raj Bahadur Sahu, Sub
Inspector, has prepared site plan of the
place of occurrence, paper no. 66 Ka. He in
the presence of Mahesh Prasad and
Virendra Singh, collected the blood stained
and plain earth and same were put in two
separate
small
containers
and
both
containers were sealed.

8. P.W.-9, Raj Bahadur Sahu, had
also collected the blood stained axe in the
presence of the witnesses and memo, paper
No. 7-ka was prepared and signed by
accused Ram Singh, who was caught on the
spot; Ram Singh had worn blood stained
shirt and the accused was asked to strip off
his shirt. It was also taken into possession
and memo, in the presence of Virendra
Singh and Mahesh Prasad was prepared
and signed.

9. Inquest report of the dead bodies of
the deceased and other necessary papers
were forwarded to district mortuary to
conduct autopsy to ascertain real cause of
death of the deceased.

10. Dr. M.C. Gupta, posted in District
Hospital, Lalitpur, conducted the autopsy
over the bodies of the deceased and he in
his
writing
and
signatures,
prepared
autopsy reports of the deceased.

11. Ram Ratan Verma, who had also
reached on the place of occurrence
accompanying
Station
House
Officer,
together with N.H. Farooqui, S.I. had
conducted the inquest over the bodies of
the deceased. On the strength of the
collected incriminating evidence, during
investigation, Investigating Officer has
submitted charge sheet, paper no. 3 Ka,
against Ram Singh under Section 302
I.P.C.

12.

Learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, vide order dated 18.05.2007
committed the case for trial of the
accused to District and Sessions Judge. In
the trial Court a criminal case was
registered as S.T. No. 44 of 2007.
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1169

13. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C.
against the accused was framed on
24.03.2009 but the accused has denied the
charge and claimed trial.

14. Prosecution in order to prove
charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the
appellant/accused Ram Singh examined,
P.W.-1
Naune
Raja,
P.W.2-Narendra
Singh, P.W.3-Govind Das, P.W.-4 Kallu
Prasad Yadav S.I., P.W.5-Dr. M.C. Gupta,
P.W.-6 Ramesh, P.W.-7 N.H.Farooqui, S.I.
P.W.-8 Ram Ratan Verma, Sub Inspector
(retired) P.W.9- Raj Bahadur.

15. Learned trial Court examined, Dr.
Amrendra
Kumar
C.W.-1
consultant,
psychiatrist as court witness.

16. Statement of accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused
Ram Singh, admitted in his statement that
before and at the time of incident he was in
the state of unsoundness of his mind and in
that state of mind, injuries to the deceased
were caused. Deceased Smt. Guddi Raja,
was wife of his brother Naune Raja
whereas, Smt. Badi Raja, Kumari Mandavi
and Managal Singh, were his wife,
daughter and son respectively.

17. With regard to the evidence that
villagers Narendra Singh, Mulayam Singh,
Mansingh and Govind Das, had caught him
with assault weapon axe on the spot,
accused has stated feigned ignorance,
saying that he had gone mad.

18. Accused in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has lastly stated that 10
years, prior to the incident, he was under
medical treatment of Dr. Rajiv Jain, for his
mental illness. For the same, he was also
treated in Gwalior and M.P. Incident had
occurred
because
of
his
madness.
Subsequently his brother was called at the
police Station by Daroga Ji and on his
direction his brother got written the First
Information Report.

19. On behalf of appellant-accused-
D.W.-1 Dr. Rajiv Jain was examined.

20. Learned trial Court heard the rival
contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties and on the strength of the evidence
on record convicted the appellant/accused
for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and
sentenced him with life imprisonment and
also imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in
default of payment of such fine he was
directed to undergo three years additional
imprisonment.

21. Heard Shri Chandra Bhushan
Tiwari, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant
and Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-Ist,
for the State and perused the record.

22.

Appellant/accused
in
his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has
not denied the incident. He has admitted
that in the alleged incident his Bhabhi
(Sister-in-law) his wife Smt. Badi Raja, his
daughter Kumari Mandavi and his son
Mangal Singh had been killed. The accused
has also expressed his ignorance regarding
the evidence on record. However, he has
further stated that his trial was based on
wrong facts. Accused has also admitted in
his statement that due to his loss of mental
balance, at the time of incident, injuries to
the deceased were having been caused. He
has taken defence that at the time of
incident he was suffering from mental
disorder.

23. At the time of statement, under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.04.2011, the
accused has admitted that after the
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
treatment at Varanasi he has become
normal.

24. In this case the commission of
alleged incident has not been denied by the
accused and also the manner of death of the
deceased has not been disputed. The
accused before the learned trial Court had
claimed the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C.
Section 84 stipulates that : " 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 what is either wrong or contrary to
law."

25. In the Indian Penal Code, Section
76 to Sections 106 are general exceptions.
Onus lies on the accused to prove that at the
time of alleged incident, due to unsoundness
of his mind he was incapable of knowing the
nature of his act or that what he was doing
was either wrong or contrary to law. If,
accused succeeds to establish that at the time
of incident, he was suffering by a mental
disorder of such magnitude that he was
incapable to know his act and succeeds to
establish to bring his case under Section 84,
he would be entitled to the benefit of Section
84, of the Code.

26. This Court has to consider the
circumstances that proceeded, attended or
followed the crime, but it is equally true
that such circumstances must be established
by credible evidence.

27. In Bapu Gajraj Vs. State of
Rajsthan, reported in 2007, Vol.8 SCC 66
Apex Court has held as follows:

"10. Section 84 embodies the
fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e.,
actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea" (an
act does not constitute guilt unless done
with a guilty intention). In order to
constitute an offence, the intent and act
must concur; but in the case of insane
persons, no culpability is fastened on them
as they have no free will (furios is nulla
voluntas est).

11. The section itself provides
that the benefit is available only after it is
proved that at the time of committing the
act, the accused was labouring under such a
defect of reason, from disease of the mind,
as not to know the nature and quality of the
act he was doing, or that even if he did not
know it, it was either wrong or contrary to
law then this section must be applied. The
crucial point of time for deciding whether
the benefit of this section should be given
or not, is the material time when the
offence takes place. In coming to that
conclusion, the relevant circumstances are
to be taken into consideration, it would be
dangerous to admit the defence of insanity
upon arguments derived merely from the
character
of
the
crime.
It
is
only
unsoundness of mind which naturally
impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind
that can form a ground of exemption from
criminal responsibility. Stephen in 'History
of the Criminal Law of England, Vo. II,
page 166 has observed that if a persons cut
off the head of a sleeping man because it
would be great fun to see him looking for it
when he woke up, would obviously be a
case where the perpetrator of the act would
be incapable of knowing the physical
effects of his act. The law recognizes
nothing but incapacity to realise the nature
of the act and presumes that where a man's
mind or his faculties of ratiocination are
sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is
doing, he must always be presumed to
intend the consequence of the action he
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1171
takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime,
howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in
the absence of plea and proof of legal
insanity, bring the case within this section
This Court in Sherall Walli Mohammad v.
State of Maharashtra, 1972 Cr. LJ 1523
(SC) , held that the mere fact that no
motive has been proved why the accused
murdered his wife and child or the fact that
he made no attempt to run away when the
door was broken open would not indicate
that he was insane or that he did not have
necessary mens rea for the offence. Mere
abnormality of mind or partial delusion,
irresistible
impulse
or
compulsive
behaviour of a psychopath affords no
protection under Section 84 as the law
contained in that section is still squarely
based on the outdated Naughton rules of
19th Century England. The provisions of
Section 84 are in substance the same as that
laid down in the answers of the Judges to
the questions put to them by the House of
Lords, in M Naughton's case. (1843) 4 St.
Tr. (NS) 847. Behaviour, antecedent,
attendant and subsequent to the event, may
be relevant in finding the mental condition
of the accused at the time of the event, but
not that remote in time. It is difficult to
prove the precise state of the offender's
mind at the time of the commission of the
offence, but some indication thereof is
often furnished by the conduct of the
offender
while
committing
it
or
immediately after the commission of the
offence. A lucid interval of an insane
person is not merely a cessation of the
violent symptoms of the disorder, but a
restoration of the faculties of the mind
sufficiently to enable the person soundly to
judge the act; but the expression does not
necessarily mean complete or prefect
restoration of the mental faculties to their
original condition. So, if there is such a
restoration, the person concerned can do
the act with such reason, memory and
judgment as to make it a legal act ; but
merely a cessation of the violent symptoms
of the disorder is not sufficient."

28. In Sudhakaran Singh vs. State of
Kerala, reported in 2010 , Vol. 10, SCC
582, the plea taken was that the appellant
was
suffering
from
"paranoid
schizophrenia". The term has been defined
in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology1 as follows: "Paranoia is now
regarded as a mild form of paranoid
schizophrenia. It occurs more in males than
in females. The main characteristic of this
illness is a well-elaborated delusional
system in a personality that is otherwise
well preserved. The delusions are of
persecutory type. The true nature of this
illness may go unrecognised for a long time
because the personality is well preserved,
and some of these paranoiacs may pass off
as a social reformers or founders of queer
pseudo- religious sects. The classical
picture is rare and generally takes a
chronic course.

Paranoid Schizophrenia, in the
vast majority of case, starts in the fourth
decade
and
develops
insidiously.
Suspiciousness
is
the
characteristic
symptom of the early stage.

29. P.W.-1 Naune Raja, in his ocular
has evidence has stated that on his
dictation, First Information Report was
having been written by Virendra Singh and
after the same was read over to him, he had
signed the report. P.W.-1 has recognized
and proved written First Information
Report as Paper No. 5 Ka as exhibit Ka-1.

30. P.W.-1, Naune Raja, has admitted
in his cross examination that at the time of
alleged incident he was not present at the
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
spot and when he had reached at the place
of occurrence the alleged incident had
already been occurred. He has also said that
with regard to the alleged incident he was
informed by Raghvendra Singh but he
(Raghvendra
Singh)
has
not
been
examined, therefore, the above statement of
P.W.-1 Naune Raja, that he was informed
by Raghvendra Singh and upon such
information he had reached on the place of
occurrence has not been corroborated by
Raghvendra Singh.

31. In the First Information report,
Exhibit Ka-1, the alleged incident is said to
have been witnessed by many villagers but
none of them has been indicated in the
written First Information Report. In the
First Information Report it is alleged that
when he had reached on the spot, he saw
that accused was caught hold by the
villagers Narendra Singh, Mulayam Singh,
Mansingh and Govind Das. It is also
alleged, that accused was caught by the
villagers while he was running from the
house.

32. P.W.-2, Narendra Singh, an eye
witness, has deposed in his testimony that
he does not remember the date of the
incident. On the date (day) of the incident,
by axe accused Ram Singh, had assaulted
his wife and two children wife of P.W.-1
Naune Raja. The incident occurred at
around 1-1.30 p.m., when he had reached at
the place of occurrence many villagers of
his village had reached there. Villagers
Rajpal Singh, Mulayam, Takhat, Govinda
who had reached on spot. Next-P.W.1 has
stated that the dead bodies were lying
scattered; he had seen that Ram Singh had
tried to run from his granary (Bakhari); he
was wielding blood stained axe; he and
other people had caught him. At the time of
incident, parents and brother of accused
Ram Singh, were not present. However, he
did not see Ram Singh to commit the
incident of killing the deceased.

33. P.W.-2 Narendra Singh, has been
declared hostile and he has also been cross
examined by the prosecution. He has stated
in his cross examination that accused Ram
Singh intermittently used to suffer from
mental dis balance. He was also got treated
by his father.

34. P.W.-2 Narendra Singh, in his
cross examination, done on behalf of the
accused, has stated that Ram Singh was
also treated for his ailment in Lalitpur and
Gwalior.

35. However, at the time of his
marriage he was not in such a mental state.
After the marriage, during his mental loss,
he had run two to three times from his
house; Once he went missing for about a
year and he was found in shabby condition
near a temple; he was brought back to his
house. Ram Singh, on his main gate, was
caught by him and other villagers.

36. At the time when he saw Ram
Singh, he was abusing and his eyes had
turned red. The parts of the dead bodies of
the deceased were scattered in the granary
(Bakhari); Virendra Singh had collected the
parts of the bodies of the deceased and put
them in the gran (Bakhari) from the gate of
house; Granary (Bakhari) was situated at
the distance of 4-5 steps.

37. He has also corroborated the
evidence of P.W.-1 Naune Raja to the
effect that Ram Singh was treated for his
ailment at Gwalior and Lalitpur.

38. P.W.-2 Narendra Singh has also
stated in his deposition that Ram Singh
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1173
used to lose control over his mind
intermittently. Since the marriage until the
alleged
occurrence,
he
had
suffered
occasionally from his mental loss.

39.

P.W.-3
Govind
Das,
on
05.12.2009, in his ocular evidence has said
that about two years, eight and half months
before the incident, at 1.00 p.m. had
occurred; he was staying back at his home;
he heard the screams of children and he
rushed to the spot and he witnesses at the
gate, he saw Virendra Singh, Rajpal Singh
Havansh Singh, Mulayam Singh, Malkhan
Singh and Indal Singh, and other 10-12
persons had already reached at the house of
Naune Raja; Ram Singh was having
blooded axe in his hand; he had killed his
wife, children and wife of Naune Raja; all
the dead bodies of the deceased were lying
scattered in the courtyard. Ram Singh had
axed all the deceased to death. On
challenge by him and other persons,
accused with axe followed them; they
hidden themselves; when Ram Singh,
threw his axe to run from the spot, they
caught and tied him with tree.

40. P.W.-3, Govind Das, has stated in
his examination in chief that after the
accused having been tied with the tree, they
went in the courtyard of the house and
witnessed that the dead bodies of Smt. Badi
Raja, Smt. Guddi Raja, Kumari Mandavi
and Mangal Singh, were lying there.
Bodies of the deceased were cut by axe to
pieces. Police had also been informed.

41. P.W.-3, Govind Das in his
examination in chief has not deposed about
the arrival of the informant Naune Raja and
his parents on the place of occurrence.

42. P.W.-3 in his cross examination
has stated that in respect of murder of the
deceased the villagers had informed the
police; any member of the family had not
informed the police; from his house, Ram
Singh's house is situated at the distance of
500 meters. He and other persons had
caught and tied the accused with tree; he
had tried to run from his house. At about
200 steps, Ram Singh was caught; he was
not caught at the gate of his house. P.W.-3
has further stated in his cross examination
that none had went to inform Naune Raja in
respect of the incident; Naune Raja on
hearing noise had reached on the spot; he
did not know as to whether Raghvendra
Singh had gone to inform Naune Raja or
not.

43. P.W.-3 Govind Das, has also stated
that Ram Singh had thrown the axe near the
dead bodies in the courtyard; the clothes
worn by him were blood stained; on catching
hold of the accused blood on their clothes had
not transferred; Ram Singh was not in a state
of his mental loss; he did not know whether
Ram Singh was medically treated or not; he
has also admitted in his cross examination
that Ram Singh, before the incident had
absconded from his house and had returned
to his house after the lapse of one month;
Since he (P.W.-3) did not remain at his house
therefore, he does not know about treatment
of Ram Singh; Ram Singh, before the alleged
incident, had not absconded in his presence
nor during his presence, Ram Singh had
returned to his house; he was working as
labour. He did not stay at one place
permanently; It would be wrong to suggest
that on the date of the incident, he was not
present in the village; it would also be wrong
to suggest that due to any police pressure he
has deposed; He has come voluntarily to lend
evidence.

44. From the depositions of P.W.-1
Naune Raja, P.W.-2 Narendra Singh, P.W.-
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3 Govind Das, it is reflected that at the time
of incident none of these witnesses were
present at the place of occurrence. The
incident has admittedly been committed by
the accused. All these witnesses had
reached at the spot after the deceased
having been killed. However, there is
minor discrepancies in evidence of P.W.-1
to P.W.-3 in the face of admission of
incident by accused in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.

45. P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 have also not
been confronted on behalf of the accused to
the effect that Ram Singh had not axed the
deceased to death. In this case, killing of
the deceased by accused by the assault of
axe is admitted to him.

46. It is a defence of the accused that
at the time of the commission of the
incident he was in the state of mental
disorder. On behalf of the accused, the plea
of insanity, at the time of commission of
crime, has been setup, therefore, onus to
prove
insanity
at
the
the
time
of
commission of the crime lies on him.

47. To ascertain whether accused
was suffering from insanity at the time of
commission of offence, his previous
behaviour, behaviour at the time of
incident and just thereafter has to be
evaluated/examined.

48.

Learned
trial
Court
has
concluded that the accused Ram Singh
was not suffering from mental disorder at
the time of commission of incident and
thus he was not found incapable of
knowing the nature of his act or that he
was doing what either was wrong or
contrary to law. This finding of the
learned trial court in respect of the mental
state of the accused at the time of the
commission of the incident, is under
challenge in the present appeal.

49. On behalf of the accused D.W.-1
Dr. Rajiv jain, in his cross examination
on 29.07.2011, has stated that on
29.01.2000, at about 12 p.m. he had
conducted EEG (Electroencephalogram)
(Mental examination) of Ram Singh at
his Clinic Mahabir psychiatrist Center, at
Lalitpur, and he had diagnosed him as
"normal".

50.

D.W.-1,
Rajeev
Jain,
in
sequence of his evidence has stated that
the family members of Ram Singh had
informed him about the symptoms and
accused on the basis of narration of
symptoms he (DW-1) was of opinion that
he could be afflicted with disease mainly
''Mania' and in his view the said illness
may be persisting since last two years. In
this disease, symptoms appear suddenly
and after some time they are disappeared.
However, in EEG examination of the
patient, any swelling etc was not found in
the brain of the accused. Other symptoms
of disease ''Mania' are excessive anger,
staying awake day in and day out, to run,
not
to have
meal
punctually,
non
maintenance of hygiene, intermittently to
take medicine causing it recurrence and
also doing abnormal activities. All these
symptoms were also having been told to
him (D.W.-1 Dr. Rajiv Jain) by the
members of the family of the accused.

51. D.W.-1 Dr. Rajeev Jain, has
further stated, in his occular evidence that
at the time of examination of patient, in
view of the symptoms of patient he had
opined that accused was afflicted with
chronicle disease. This illness is bound to
recur. The main reason for the illness to
recur in future could be due to non taking
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1175
of medicine regularly. If, medicines are not
taken punctually, then there is possibility of
its aggravation and the said illness may turn
to psychosis in humans.

52. It is also stated in the testimony of
D.W. 1, Dr. Rajeev Jain, that ''Chronical
disease' may reappear after few years and
the symptoms of the patient may also be
aggravated. If a patient is so inflicted, he
may not be able to identify a person and on
aggravation, such a person can also assault.

53. Dr. Jain-DW-1, has proved EEG
report, paper no. 111 Kha, and also EEG
book 112 Kha, as Exhibit Kha-1 and
Exhibit Kha-2. He has further stated that
the papers have been signed by him. He has
clarified that EEC report Exhibit Ka-1, is
based on the basis of EEC book Exhibit
Ka-2.

54. D.W.-1, Dr. Rajiv Jain, in his
cross examination has stated that he had
privately practised in Lalitpur from the year
1994 to January, 2010; in his clinic he has
rendered his services until 2005; name of
the persons, who brought accused Ram
Singh is not mentioned in his report.
Symptoms of patient were told by the
family members of the accused and few
symptoms were found on the basis of his
examination. He had delivered all the
treatment papers to the patient and he does
not remember as to how many times patient
Ram Singh had come to his clinic for his
treatment.

55. He has next stated that at the time
of examination of the patient, he was found
normal. Such patients are advised to take
continuous treatment for 2-3 years. He has
also expressed his inability to recall as to
how long Ram Singh had come at his clinic
for his treatment. At the instance of the
family members of the patient he had
recorded the name accordingly. Normally
he does not identity his patients if they
again appear before him, therefore, he
cannot say that the accused, who was
present in the Court, was Ram Singh or not.
It would be wrong to suggest that he had
not treated Ram Singh and he had prepared
a false medical report of the accused at his
instance.

56. From the evidence of D.W.-1 Dr.
Rajiv Jain, it is reflected that he had
examined Ram Singh at his clinic, on
29.11.2000 at 12 noon and on his
examination based on the EEG, he was
found normal.

57. Having regard to his remaining
evidence, it is academic in nature, because
of the fact that he had expressed his
opinion about the disease on the narration
of symptoms as having been told to him by
the family members of the accused. D.W.-
1, Dr. Rajiv Jain has expressed his opinion
in the given circumstances. However, upon
examination of the accused, he had found
him mentally normal. As such, the
testimony of Dr. Rajiv Jain, does not help
the accused in his plea of insanity. Dr. Jain,
has
also
expressed
his
inability
to
remember how many times accused had
visited his clinic for his treatment. Further,
Dr. Jain was consulted on 29.21/2000,
whereas, incident is stated to have occurred
on 22.03.2007.

58. In the report 111-Kha, Dr. Rajiv
Jain,
Neuro
Psychiatrist
has
also
conclusively opined that EEG of Ram
Singh was within normal limits.

59. Accused vide O.P.D. No. 17704
dated 16.11.2007, on his (Ram Singh)
reference to ascertain his mental status
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination, no history regarding his
illness was available with the Doctor
concerned, therefore, Doctor vide his report
has stated, in paper No. 11 Kha, that it was
not possible for him to arrive at any
conclusion regarding the mental status of
Ram Singh.

60. Doctor advised accused Ram
Singh, that he would be put under
observation to ascertain his mental status
for at least 14 days. He had referred Ram
Singh to mental hospital, Varanasi for
further treatment.

61. Shri Amrendra Kumar, Medical
Officer/ Psychiatrist, in mental hospital,
Banaras, in compliance of Court order
dated 11.12.2007, examined Ram Singh;
during admission in the hospital on
17.12.2007 and 02.01.2008, medical officer
observed
that
he
suffered
from
''unspecified,
Non
Organic
Pshchotic
Disorder (F-29).' Ram Singh was medically
examined on 17.11.2007 and 201.2000,
whereas,
incident
had
occurred
on
20.03.2007.

62. The Medical Officer, vide report
dated 02.01.2008, paper no. 16 Kha/2 one
column and B-pertaining to other facts
about the insanity, communicated to him by
other medical officer did not find anything
"significant".

63. Director and Chief Superintending
Medical Hospital Varanasi, vide letter
dated 28.02.2008, addressed to the District
and Session Judge, Lalitpur, who had
conducted the trial of the accused, stated
that in compliance of his (District and
Sessions Judge, Lalitpur), letter no. 6 dated
22.01.2008,
prisoner-accused's
mental
status was examined by Shri Amrendra
Kumar, Medical Officer/ Psychiatrist, in
mental hospital, Banaras, and stated that his
mental condition found was better; he took
his meal and also slept; he was maintaining
his hygiene and also he had complied the
directions; accused was giving most of the
right answers to the questions put to him;
he often smiled; mumbled without reason.
Ram Singh, vide letter dated 19 Kha, dated
28.02.2008, was not found fully healthy. It
was averred in the letter that as per the
advice of medical officer/ psychiatrist he
was being treated.

64. Director and Chief Superintendent
Medical Hospital Varanasi, vide letter No.
2008/507/Ram Singh/dated March 15th
2008,
form
no.
21
Kha/
to
Jail
Superintendent Officer Prison, Lalitpur,
was informed about the treatment, better
condition of Ram Singh; he 19 was being
treated for his illness and regarding his
fitness his matter would be discussed in the
forthcoming quarterly meeting of the
Board.

65. Director and Chief Superintendent
Mental Hospital, Varanasi, vide letter
2008/September 24/08, regarding mental
state
of
prisoner
Ram
Singh,
Superintendent District Jail, Lalitpur, was
informed that in the visitors Board meeting
dated 12.09.2008, Ram Singh was declared
mentally unhealthy and it was also advised
to continue his (Ram Singh's) treatment.

66. Chief Medical Superintendent,
Mental Hospital, Varanasi, vide his report
no. 2009 dated 26.02.2009, paper no. 38
Kha to learned trial Court Judge, Lalitpur,
with regard to mental status of Ram Singh,
in connection with his trial in the instant
case, it was reported that in the half yearly
meeting of visitors Board, held on
17.02.2009, Ram Singh, was declared
mentally healthy and Ram Singh was also
1 All. Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1177
recommended to be transferred from the
hospital to Jail concerned.

67. There is also treatment card dated
15.03.2009 of accused by
Dr. Shri
Amrendra
Kumar,
Medical
Officer/
Psychiatrist, who had prescribed two
tablets and another capsule for Ram Singh,
to be continued for at least three months
and to be stopped on the advise of a
Psychiatrist.

68. Alleged incident is said to have
occurred on 22.03.2007, whereas, other
medical reports, regarding medical status of
accused pertains, between the period
16.11.2007 to 17.02.2009. It is also evident
from the above referred medical reports
that after the alleged incident dated
22.03.2007, accused for his mental illness
20 was treated after the lapse of about
seven and half months. However, he was
reported vide paper no. 111 Kha, Exhibit
Kha-1, on 29.01.2000, within the normal
limits of his mental condition.

69. P.W.-1, Naune Raja, in his cross
examination, with regard to mental status
of the accused before the alleged incident,
has stated that one day before the incident,
the accused was mentally fit he was
suffering from mental illness and he
occassionly had fits and during fits, he
would sit in isolation and he would not take
his meal regularly and also upon persuation
he would not have meal; he would eat at
will but he did not stay hungry for a couple
of days. During illness his eyes would turn
red; he would flee from the house, but since
5-6 years he had not fled from the house.
He had fled about 10 years earlier from the
house and had returned on his own. Though
attempted to trace him, by his father and
family members was made but they did not
come to know about his whereabouts. Ram
Singh had fled from his house five years
before the incident. Accused was married
to the daughter of Brijraj Singh. Accused at
the time of his marriage was not mentally
ill but at that time also he would suffer
from fits.

70. P.W.-1, Naune Raja, has also
further stated that he has no dispute with
accused with regard to property, however,
due to the illness of the accused, he did not
meet him; he and accused are living in one
house and share common courtyard; there
is same main gate to their house; he was
not on bad terms with accused. He would
not abuse him or his wife nor he (Ram
Singh) had ever beaten his wife.

71. P.W.-2, Narendra Singh, has
turned hostile. He, in his cross examination
done on behalf of the accused has stated
that Ram Singh after marriage had
absconded 2-3 times and he went missing
for a year; his family members on search
found him near a temple in shabby
condition. He was brought back to the
house in disturbed mental state, he would
not have his meal regularly.

72. P.W.-2 Narendra Singh, is not
family member of the accused. He lives at
half a kilometre distance from house of the
accused. Deposition of P.W.-2 that Ram
Singh after his marriage had absconded 2-3
times and upon search by his family
members, he was found near the temple has
not been supported by the P.W.-1 Naune
Raja. In this connection, Naune Raja, has
stated that accused had absconded 10 years
before the day of his deposition before the
Court (i.e. 28.07.2000) and had returned of
his own after lapse of one year; he was not
traced by his father. As such, statement of
P.W.-2 Narendra Singh, is inconsistent
with the evidence of P.W.-1 Naune Raja.
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
P.W.-1 Naune Raja, has categorically
stated in his statement that accused Ram
Singh after his marriage had fits and
therefore, he was treated by Dr. Rajiv Jain
at his Clinic, Lalitpur, and also at Gwalior,
by Dr. Malhotra. Accused went there along
with his father and uncle; his father had
incurred the expenses of his treatment.

73. P.W.-1 Naune Raja, has expressed
his ignorance about the treatment of Ram
Singh's mental illness at Banaras, during
his incarceration in jail.

74. P.W.-2 Narendra Singh, who
turned hostile has also stated in his
testimony that accused was treated at
Lalitpur and Gwalior.

75.