http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SINDHI @  RAMAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/02/1975

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1665            1975 SCR  (3) 574  1975 SCC  (1) 647  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1978 SC1675  (223)  E          1980 SC 898  (159)

ACT: Sec. 374 and See. 465 of the Cr.  P. Code 1898--When does  a trial  conclude if the Sessions Judge passes death  sentence and  refers  to High Court for confirmation--Whether  it  is continuation  of trial--Interpretation  of  statute--Liberal construction to avoid repugnancy with principles of  natural justice.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent  was sentenced to death  by  the  Additional Sessions  Judge  for  double murder.  He did  not  file  any appeal.  The trial Judge made a reference to the High Court, for  confirmation  of death sentence.   Two  advocates  were appointed  Amicus  Cuiae to defend  the  respondent.   After interview with the respondent the advocates reported to  the High  Court that the respondent appeared to be  insane.   He was   examined   by  a  Medical  Board   consisting   of   3 Psychiatrists.   According to the Medical Board he  was  not capable  of rational thinking or behaviour.  The High  Court came  to, the conclusion that the respondent was clearly  of unsound  mind.   The High Court,  therefore,  postponed  the proceedings  in  the confirmation case.  On appeal  to  this Court by State, it was contended; (1)The  provision regarding postponing the proceedings  if an  accused is found to be of unsound mind as  contained  in section  465 of the Criminal Procedure Code is  confined  to the trial stage and does not apply to the proceedings before the  High  Court  on reference as the  same  are  post-trial proceedings. (2)In  proceedings  on  reference under  section  334  the accused has no right of audience before the High Court. (3)  The  High Court was wrong in delegating its  powers  to determine whetherthe  responder, was of unsound  mind  to the Medical Board. HELD : (i) As far as an accused person sentenced to death is concerned,  his trial does not conclude with termination  of the  proceedings  in the Court of Session, since  the  death sentence  passed  by  the Court of  Session  is  subject  to confirmation  by the High Court, the trial cannot be  deemed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

to have concluded till an executable sentence is passed by a competent  court.   The  confirmation  proceedings  are   in substance a continuation of the trial.  Expression ,.at  his trial".  occurring  in  section 465  hoes  to  be  liberally construed  in  a  manner  which  is  not  repugnant  to  the fundamental principles of natural justice. [579D-E; 58OD-B ] (2)  In  confirmation  proceedings  the  High  Court  cannot arbitrarily refuse  to hearthe  accused either in  person or through counsel. It is wrong to state     that theHigh Court  accepted the ipse dixit of the medical  experts.These experts.gave  detailed  and cogent reasons in  support  of their  opinion.The High Court meticulously considered  their evidence  and  thereafter recorded its own findings  on  the crucial issues. [581B-D] The  decision  in  Yivian Rodrick v. State  of  West  Bengal [1969] 3 S.C.C. 176, followed. The  decision  in cases of Juman & Ors. v. State  of  Punjab A.I.R.  1957 S.C. 469 and Surjit Singh and Anr. v. State  of Punjab.   Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1968 decided  on  15-10- 1968 applied.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1971. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated  the 3rd July, 1970 of the Bombay High Court in confirmation  cut No. 20 of 1969. D.   Y. Patel and M. N. Shroff,.for the Appellant. B.   R. Agarwala, for the Respondent. 575 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J.-The principal question raised in this appeal by special  leave  is  : Whether Section 465  of  the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure, 1898, is applicable to  proceedings  in reference  under  s. 374 pending before the High  Court  for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to an accused  by the Court of Session? It arises out of these circumstances. Sindhi  alias  Raman was tried, convicted and  sentenced  to death  on  13-8-1969  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,, Greater  Bombay for the double murder of two  brothers,  Lal Chand  Jagannath Yadav and Dullar Jaggi Yadav in  Chinhavali Farm  at  Malad on the night between the 25th  and  26th  of August,  1968.  Sindhi did not appeal against the  order  of his conviction.  But the trial Judge made a reference  under s. 374 of the Code to the High Court for confirmation of the death  sentence.  The reference came up for hearing  towards the end of 1969. On 22-10-1969, the prisoner expressed a desire to be present at  the  hearing  of his case before the  High  Court.   Two Advocates,  namely Shri D. M. Rane with Shri Mengde  as  the Senior  were  appointed  as  amicus  curiae  to  defend  the condemned  prisoner in the High Court.   After  interviewing the prisoner in Jail on 8-1-1970 and 9-1-1970, the  Advocate reported to the High Court that the accused was not able  to communicate  with  them intelligently and rationally  as  he appeared to be insane.  Counsel submitted an application  to the  High Court requesting that the accused be got  examined by  a  Board ,of psychiatrists in order to determine  as  to whether he was or was not of unsound mind.  The  application was opposed on behalf of the State inter alia on the  ground that  s.  465  applies only to a trial  before  a  court  of Session.   The High Court rejected this contention,  and  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

its  order, dated 14th January, 1970, directed the  Surgeon- General,  Bombay  to constitute a Special Medical  Board  of three  psychiatrists on the lines indicated in Rule  850  of the   Bombay  Jail  Manual,  to  examine  the  accused   and "determine  whether  the accused is of  unsound  mind,  and, secondly  whether  in consequence of his  unsound,  ness  of mind, he is incapable of making his defence in the  proceed- ings  before  us".  The Board was  accordingly  constituted. The   Board  deputed  Dr.  Balakrishna  Laxman   Chandorkar, Superintendent  of  the  Mental Hospital  to  interview  the accused.    Dr.  Chandorkar,  consequently,   had   fourteen interviews  with  the accused and also examined  the  latter physically.   The accused was sent, under  Dr.  Chandorkar’s directions,  to several hospitals for special  examinations. Dr.  Chandorkar  gathered the past history of  the  accused, also,  in so far as it was relevant to determine  the  issue referred to him.  The conclusion reached by Dr.  Chandorkar. which  he reported to the Board on 28-2-1970, was  that  the accused was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and was of unsound mind and. in consequence. he was incapable of making his defence.  On receiving the report of Dr. 576 Chandorkar,  the  Special Medical Board  also  examined  and inter"viewed   the   accused  on  five   occasions.    Their conclusion, as communicated to the High Court, was               "(1)   Sindhi   Dalwai  alias   Raman   Raghav               (Prisoner)   is  of  unsound  mind.    He   is               suffering  from  a  psychosis  called  chronic               paranoid  schizophrenia  or  paraphrase,   the               latter being an old term for chronic  paranoid               schizophrenia  plus  auditory  hallucinations.               He  is  dangerous  to the  society  and  hence               certifiably insane.               (2)   Sindhi  knew the nature of the act  i.e.               he knew that he was killing human beings.               (3)   He  did know that what he did was  wrong               and  contrary  to the law of the land  but  he               firmly  believed  that what he was  doing  was               right  and in tune with the law of  "kanoon...               whose law according to him was obligatory. for               him to follow.               (4)   There is such a degree of unsoundness of               mind  resulting in such a degree of defect  of               reason  that he is in-capable of  co-operating               with  and instructing his defence  counsel  in               the conduct of the trial and court proceedings               and  he is incapable of making his defence  in               the  proceedings before the High  Court.   The               reasons for this incapability are               (a)   Complete   lack  of  insight  into   his               illness;               (b)   firm and unshakable delusions that  only               the  law  of "Kanoon" matters and the  law  of               this world does not apply to him and hence his               inability   to   participate  in   the   court               proceedings;               (c)   his complete lack of realization of  the               gravity  of the crime and the  seriousness  of               his death sentence;               (d)   his  judgment is so much  influenced  by               his  delusions and hallucinations that  he  is               incapable.    of   rational    thinking    and               behaviour." After examining Dr. Marfatia, the Chairman of the Board  and Dr.  Chandorkar, the Mental Specialist, as court  witnesses,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

the High Court held               "The  prisoner is clearly of unsound mind  and               in  consequence thereof he is unable  to  make               his  defence.   Therefore proceedings  in  the               confirmation  case will have to be postponed               and  in the meantime it-will be  necessary  to               direct that the State Government do detain the               prisoner  in safe custody in  Yeravda               Central Prison." It  is against this order,, dated 3-7-1970, that  the  State has come in appeal before this Court. 577 Mr.  Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant,  assails  the order of the High Court, postponing the proceedings under s. 465 Criminal Procedure Code, on these grounds :               (i)   The  operation of s. 465, is, in  terms,               confirmed  to  the trial stage.   The  section               does not apply to proceedings before the  High               Court,  on  reference  unders.  374,  as   the               sameare post-trial proceedings;               (ii)  The  question as to whether the  accused               person  has  the  mental  capacity  to  defend               himself  or  not,  arises  only  at  the  pre-               conviction I stage before the Committal  Court               or the trial court, because it is only at that               stage  the  accused person has a right  to  be               heard  and lead evidence in defence.   But  in               proceedings  on  reference under s.  374,  the               accused person has no right of audience before               the High Court, not even where the High  Court               directs  a  further enquiry or the  taking  of               additional  evidence under s. 375,  nor  where               any  appeal of the accused filed  through  the               jailor  under  s. 420, comes  up  for  hearing               along  with  the  reference.   It  is  another               matter that the High Court has the power, even               in such proceedings to hear the accused.   For               this  argument  support has been  sought  from               certain  observations of Madgaonkar A.J.C.  in               Gul v. Emperor(1). In this connection, learned Counsel has pointed out that  at the  commencement of the trial before the Court of  Session, also, a question was raised as to the mental capacity of the accused  and thereupon, the trial Judge after making  a  due enquiry  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  s.  465, recorded  a clear-cut finding that the accused was  then  of sound  mind and capable of understanding the nature  of  the proceedings and making a defence.  This finding of the trial Judge,  it  is stressed, was not assailed  before  the  High Court, and still stands unchallenged. Learned  Counsel also tried to distinguish the  decision  of this Court in Vivian Rodrick v. State of- West Bengal(2)  on the  ground that in that case the convict had  preferred  an appeal   against   the  order  of   his   conviction,   and, consequently,  the observations of this Court in  regard  to the  applicability  of s. 465 Cr.  P.C.  to  proceedings  in reference  axe  merely obiter.  In the  alternative,  it  is submitted  that those observations need  reconsideration  in the light of the arguments now advanced before us. Section  465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,, 1898,  runs thus               "(1) If any person committed for trial  before               a Court of Session or a High Court appears  to               the  Court at his trial to be of unsound  mind               and  consequently  incapable  of  making   his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             defence, the jury, or the               (1) A R 1921 sird 84.               (2) [1969]3 S.C.C.176                578               Court  shaft, in the first instance,  try  the               fact  of such unsoundness and incapacity,  and               if  the jury or Court, as the case may be,  is               satisfied of the fact, the Judge shall  record               a  finding to that effect and  shall  postpone               further ’proceedings in the case and the jury,               if any, shall be discharged.               (2)   The trial of the fact of the unsoundness               of  mind and incapacity of the, accused  shall               be  deemed to be part of his trial before  the               Court." It  ’will  be  seen  that  s.  465,  in  terms  relates   to unsoundness of accused’s mind and his consequent  incapacity to  make defence, at the time of trial only.   The  question therefore  is : Does the trial on a murder charge, end  with the  conviction and pronouncement of death sentence  on  the accused by the Court of Session?  Or, does it ,continue till the reference under s. 374, is disposed of by the High Court ? Answer to this question was given by this Court,  speaking through Govinda Menon J., as far back as 1956 in Jumman  and ors. v.   State of Punjab(1) in a telling passage thus               "It   is  clear  from  a  perusal   of   these               provisions  (ss.  374, 375, 376 and  377,  Cr.               P.C.)  that in such circumstances  the  entire               case  is before the High Court and in fact  it               is a continuation of the trial of the  accused               on  the  same  evidence  and  any   additional               evidence  and  that is why the High  Court  is               given  power to take fresh evidence if it  so’               desires...........  but there is a  difference               when  a  reference  is  made  under  s.   374,               Criminal Procedure Code, and when disposing of               an  appeal  under s. 423,  Criminal  Procedure               Code,  and that is that the High Court has  to               satisfy  itself  as to whether a  case  beyond               reasonable doubt has been made out against the               accused  persons  for the  infliction  of  the               penalty  of  death.  In fact  the  proceedings               before  the High Court are a  reappraisal  and               the  reassessment of the entire facts and  law               in  order  that  the  High  Court  should   be               satisfied on the materials about the guilt  or               innocence of the accused persons.  Such  being               the case, it is the duty of the High Court  to               consider the proceedings in all their  aspects               and  come  to independent  conclusion  on  the               materials,  apart from ;the view expressed  by               the Sessions Judge."               (emphasis supplied) The same position was reiterated with emphasis by this Court in Surjit Singh and anr. v. State of Punjab (2). Even  in  Gul v. Emperor (supra), cited by Mr.  Patel,  Mad- gonkar A. J. C. expressed himself in a similar strain.  What he  said  more than half a century back  still  retains  its freshness and relevance, and may be extracted (1)  AIR-1957 S.C.469. (2)  Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1968 decided on 15-10-1968. 579               "The  worth and sanctity of human life  are  a               test  and mark of civilized societies and  are               increasingly   reflected   in   the   criminal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             jurisprudence  of  England and of  India.   In               India,   the  Legislature  has   provided   in               confirmation      proceedings     a      final               safeguard.............   This   may    perhaps               increase  our responsibilities and add to  our               labours;  but  no one would shirk the  one  or               grudge  the  other even in a  case  where  the               liberty,  much  more where the  life,  of  the               subject  is concerned.  This duty of  judgment               is,  however laid id the first  instance  upon               the  Jury  and  the  Trial  Judge........  But               equally  and with all this weight, this  Court               in confirmation must finally weigh for  itself               the  whole  evidence in the light of  all  the               arguments  and confirm or otherwise  according               to  its own final conclusion on the  guilt  or               innocence of the sentenced person in the  dis-               charge of the duty laid upon it by law." From  the above conspectus, it emerges clear that so far  as in accused person sentenced to death is concerned, his trial does not conclude with the termination of the proceedings in the Court of  session. The reason is that the death sentence passed by the Court of Session is subject to confirmation by the High Court.  A trial cannot be deemed to have  concluded till  an  executable sentence is ,passed  by  the  competent court.   Viewed  from  that  stand-point,  the  confirmation proceedings under ss. 374, 375 and 376, Chapter XXVII of the Code  of  1898,  are, in substance, a  continuation  of  the trial. Nor  is  it  correct  to  say  that  in  such   confirmation proceedings  the High Court can arbitrarily refuse  to  hear the  accused  either In person or through Counsel  or  other agent. In   Vivian  Rodrick’s  case  (supra),  the  appellant   was convicted  under S. 302, Penal Code by the Court of  Session and sentenced to death.  The Sessions Judge made a reference under  s. 374 for confirmation of the death  sentence.   The convict  ’appealed against the order of his conviction  and- sentence.  The High Court dismissed the appeal, accepted the reference and confirmed the conviction and the sentence.  In an appeal by special leave brought before this Court,  it was  inter alia contended that the proceedings taken in  the appeal    before the High Court were void for non-compliance of s. 465.     What  this  Court  said  in  repelling   that contention,  being  equally  applicable  to  what  has  been canvassed before us on behalf of the appellant. may usefully be extracted :               "We. are of the view that it is not  necessary               for us, in this case, to express only  opinion               on  the  applicability, or otherwise,  of  the               provisions  of s. 465, Cr.  P.C.  to  appeals.               For, on the facts of the case, we are inclined               to  accent the alternative contention  of  Mr.               Rana that in the face of the medical  evidence               and in view of the fact that the                580               appellant  was contesting his  conviction  for               murder and the               sentence  of death             imposed on  him               it  would  have been proper  if  the  Division               Bench which heard his appeal had postponed the               hearing  of the appeal till such time  as  the               appellant  was  declared fit  to  contest  his               appeal........  Whatever  may  be  the   legal               position-regarding the applicability of s. 465

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

             Cr.   P.C. to appeals, we are not inclined  to               agree  with the proposition enunciated by  the               learned Judges that there is no bar to hearing               and  disposing  of  an  appeal,  even  if  the               accused-appellant  is of unsound mind or  even               insane at the time when the appeal is taken up               for hearing...... in our opinion, when the re-               port  is  that  an  accused  appellant  is  of               unsound  mind, it is reasonable to infer  that               he  is incapable of making his  defence.   The               Court, in the circumstances is bound to afford               him  the same protection to which he would  be               entitled  had he been of unsound mind  at  the               time of the trial." In  the  present case no appeal was filed  by  the  prisoner before  the High Court.  It is therefore unnecessary for  us to  examine whether the provisions of s. 465, in terms,  or, in principle, apply, to an appeal by the condemned  prisoner before the High Court. Suffice     it   to  say   that   the expression "at his trial" occurring in S. 465 has to   be liberally  construed in a manner which is not  repugnant  to the  fundamental  principle of natural justice  conveyed  by the maxim Audi alteram partem, audiatur el altera pars. In  the  light of what has been said above we  negative  the legal contentions raised by the appellant-State. The next contention of Mr. Patel is that the High Court left the  decision  of  both the points, viz.,  (1)  whether  the accused  was of unsound mind and (2) whether in  consequence he  was incapable of making his defence, almost entirely  to the   Medical  Board.   Such  delegation  which  gives   the proceeding the colour of trial by Doctors is not permissible under the law.  Reference on this point has been made to  R. v.  Pondole(1).   On  merits also,  it  is  maintained,  the findings on the aforesaid issues, are wrong, as the  accused fully  knew that he had, been tried and sentenced  to  death for  the murders on question.  Emphasis is has been laid  on the  fact  that the accused had on 18-12-1969  expressed  in writing through jailor, his desire to be present in the High Court  at the time of the hearing of his case.  Counsel  has referred extensively to the statements of Doctor  Chandorkar and  Dr.  Marfatia and contended that everything  about  the mental  condition  of the accused even  according  to  these medical’ experts was normal excepting that he was  suffering from the delusion that he ’had been ordained, by some higher "Kanoon" to commit these murders.  According to, Mr.  Patel, insanity  judged  by clinical standards  is  different  from insanity determined by legal (1)  [1959] All E.R. 418. 581 standards.   It is urged that since the accused  fully  knew the  nature  of the criminal acts he had committed  and  the proceeding  against  him, it could not be said that  he  was incapable of making his defence. It is true that the High Court had by its order dated  14-1- 1970, referred both  the  issues  in regard  to  the  mental capacity of the accused  to the Medical Board, and has given due weight to their opinion.  But  it is not correct to  say that the High Court accepted the ipse   dixit of the medical experts.   It  examined Dr. Marfatia and Dr.  Chandorkar  as court  witnesses.   These experts gave detailed  and  cogent reasons  in  support  of  their  opinion.   The  High  Court meticulously   Considered  their  evidence  and   thereafter recorded  its own findings on the crucial issues.   We  have ourselves examined the evidence rendered by these two mental experts  in  the  High Court.  We  are  satisfied  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

conclusion  arrived  at by the High Court in regard  to  the mental capacity of the accused on the basis of this evidence is correct. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. P.H.P.        Appeal dismissed. 582