http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: S.K. NAIR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/11/1996

BENCH: G.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.N. RAY,J.      This appeal  is directed  against  the  judgment  dated 3.3.1987 passed  by the  Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court  n Criminal Appeal  No. 117 DB of 1986 affirming the conviction under  Section   302  IPC   and  consequential  sentence  of imprisonment for  life and  fine of  Rs. 2,000/-  in default further rigorous  imprisonment for six months and conviction under Section  324 IPC  and consequential  sentence  of  six months rigorous  imprisonment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, in Sessions case No. 24 of 1984.      The appellant  Sri S.K. Nair was charged for committing murder of  Naik B.  Chowdhury and  causing injuries  with  a ’khukri’ (Nepaleese  dagger) on  Havildar P.P.S. Kashyap and the driver  Joga Singh  within the  barrack in the Air Force Station, Bhisana  in the  early morning  of August 13. 1982. The prosecution  case in  short is that the accused S.K.Nair and the  deceased B.  Chowdhury  and  the  injured  Havilder P.P.S. Kashyap  used to  stay  in  the  same  barrack  being barrack No.19  in the  said Air  Force Station, Bhisana. The deceased Naik  B. Chowdhury  was to  proceed on  leave  with effect from  August 13,  1982 and  the driver Joga Singh was deputed to  pick up  the said  Naik Chowdhury  at 5  A.M. on August 13,  1982 and  to prop him at Ambala Railway Station. The said  Naik Chowdhury  requested Havildar  P.P.B. Kashyap went to  awake Sri  Chowdhury for  the second  time at about 4.45 AM.,  he noticed  the accused sitting on his cot with a ’khukri’ in  his right  hand being  taken out of its sheath. The accused  inflicted two  khukri blows  on the head of the said Kashyap  who than  raised noise  and  the  deceased  B. Chowdhury and Mr. Suresh Kumar got up from sleep and noticed that the  accused was  giving blows  with khukri to the said Sri Kashyap.  Sri kashyap  however could manage to go out of the barrack  through  a  window.  The  deceased  B.Chowdhury caught hold  of the  accused and  told him  that he would be produced before the officers. The accused then retorted that he would  be  produced  before  the  officers  only  if  Sri Chowdhury was  alive by then. Saving sc, the accused started inflicting khukri  blows on  the person  of the deceased and dealt 19  blows on  different parts of his body. As a result

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the said  Sri Chowdhury  died on the spot. Joga Singh driver reached by  that time and when he tried to stop the accused, he was  also attacked by the accused and Joga Singh suffered one khukri  blow on  his right  flank and he then ran but of the barrack.  Both Sri  Kashyap and  Joga Singh went to M.I. Room where  they were  treated  by  Dr.  R.K.  Bhattacharji. Thereafter, the  Security  Officer,  Sri  G.S.R  Sharma  and Sergeant Benedict  along  with  R.K.  Bhattacharji  came  to barrack No.19  and found  the dead  body  of  the  said  Sri Chowdhury and  they also  found that the accused in military uniform was  standing with a khukri in his hand. The accused surrendered himself  to the security officer and handed over the khukri to him. The accused was formally arrested by S.I. Balbir Singh  and inquest  or the dead body was held and the dead body  was sent  for postmortem  examination. The  post- mortem examination  revealed that  the deceased had suffered 19 khukri  blows on various parts of his body and the doctor holding post-mortem  and they were sufficient to cause death in the  ordinary course  of nature  and also  opined that on account of such injuries, the death was instantaneous.      It may  be stated  here that  the  accused  denied  the charges and  pleaded false  accusation against  him  in  his statement  under   Section  313  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure. The  accused examined Lt, Col, H.B. Chkraborty as a defence witness.      The learned  Additional Sessions Judge, considering the evidences of  the injured  eye-witnesses and other evidences adduced in the case, held the accused guilty of the offences under Section  302 and  324 IPC  and  passed  the  aforesaid sentences against  him. On appeal before the High Court, the convictions and  sentences passed  against the  accused were uphold. Both  the learned  Sessions Judge and the High Court did not  accept the contention made on behalf of the accused that the  accused being  a confirmed  paranoid  was  not  in normal frame of mind and was incapable of understanding what he had  been doing  at the  time of  commission of  the said offences. It  has been indicated by the courts below that at the relevant  time, the  words and  actions of  the  accused clearly  demonstrated   that  he   was  quite   capable   of understanding the  nature of  his activities. Accordingly he was not entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC.      At the  hearing of  this appeal,  the  learned  counsel appearing  for   the  appellant   has  submitted   that  the prosecution case  that it was the accused who had caused the death of  the deceased  by inflicting  khukri blows  and had also caused  injuries on  the said  Sri Kashyap and Sri Joga Singh has  been established by leading evidences of the eye- witnesses and  such finding can not be assailed in the facts of the  case. But  the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that  the mental  frame of a paranoid had not been appreciated by the courts below.      The learned  counsel has  submitted that  a paranoid is not only  a person  of unsound  mind but  a paranoid suffers from special  and  peculiar  ideas  and  visions  which  are different from other persons of unsound mind. As a result, a paranoid within moments may completely lose his normal frame of mind  and be  seized of special emotions thereby impelled to behave  wildly and  such sudden  fit of  emotion may also vanish within  moments. For  a paranoid,  there is  no lucid interval as  may be  found in  other cases of insanity or in persons afflicted by unsound mind.      It has  been contended  by the  learned counsel for the appellant that the accused appellant was a confirmed patient diagnosed as  paranoid. He  was  repeatedly  treated  as  an indoor patient  for such  mental disease  and the doctor who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

had treated  the accused   gave  opinion  that  the  accused should be  discharged from  service. Such facts have clearly established  from  the  record  of  his  treatment  and  the deposition of  lt. Col.  Chakraborty. It is unfortunate that despite such  medical reports and the opinion of the doctor. the accused was retained in service and he was allowed to be exposed to the grave risk to himself and also to others with whom he was staying in the barrack.      The learned  counsel has  also  submitted  that  it  is revealed from the depositions in the case that the appellant was in  friendly  terms  with  the  deceased  and  the  said injured. Havildar  kashyap. No  motive  has  been  ascribed. which was  likely to  impel the  accused to  commit the said offences. It  is quite  evident that  all of  a  sudden  the appellant attacked  Sri kashyap  with Khukri  and  when  the deceased caught  hold of  the accused.  he was also attacked and Joga  Singh was  also attacked when he tried to stop the accused. The fact that the accused again became normal. when the sudden  impulsive bout disappeared, is also demonstrable from the  fact that  when the  superior officers came to the barrack. they  found him  dressed in military uniform and he handed over  the KHukri  to the  superior officer  and  also surrendered without  any attempt  of resistance. The learned counsel has  submitted that  if the  peculiar  traits  of  a paranoid were  considered by  the  court  in  the  light  of recognised medical  literatures on  a paranoid,  the  courts below would  not have  committed the  error in rejecting the plea of  protection under  Section  84  IPC  by  erroneously applying the  usual test  in other  cases  of  persons  with unsound mind.  The learned counsel had, therefore, submitted that the  accused being  unfortunate victim  of a particular mental disease  deserves to  be acquitted  by giving him the protection under Section 84 IPC.      We have  given our carefully consideration to the facts and circumstances  of the  case and  evidences produced.  We are, however, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel  that  being  a  paranoid,  the  appellant  must  be presumed to have committed the said offences being seized of sudden impulsive  fits of  passion for  which temporarily he was completely  incapable to  understand as  to what  he had been doing  with what  consequences.   Even if it is assumed that in  the case  of a paranoia, the ordinary test of lucid interval as  applicable in the case of patients with unsound mind, is  not to  be applied, and a paranoid is likely to be seized  of   sudden  bouts  of  impulsive  feats  for  which temporarily he  becomes completely  incapable to  understand the implication of his activities, and such sudden bouts may also disappear  within a  very short  time, in  the  instant case, it  has been  revealed from the evidences adduced that at  the  time  of  commission  of  the  said  offences,  the appellant   did   not   completely   lose   his   sense   of understanding. When the deceased caught hold of him and told that he would be taken to the officers, he retorted that the deceased could  do that  if he  was alive then and so saying inflicted khukri  blows on  him. Such  words and  acts  only demonstrate that  at the time of commission of the offences, he could  explain his  intended action with logic. Hence, it is not  necessary to  consider the  probabilities which  may happen with  a paranoia.  In the  facts of  the case, it has been clearly  established that the accused was not incapable to  understand  the  implication  of  his  acts.  Hence,  no interference is called for in this appeal.      The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4