EMPEROR Vs. DURGA CHARAN SING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Durga Charan Sing was charged under Section 302, I.P.C., for having committed the offence of murder on 18 February 1937, by intentionally causing the death of Mt. Raimoni, daughter of the complainant Ramu Khatri, with a dao, a dangerous weapon. He was placed on his trial before the learned Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts and a jury. On the unanimious verdict of the jury, the learned Judge convicted the accused under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to death. The case of the accused is before us, under the provisions of Sec. 374, Criminal P.C.; the records have been submitted to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on the accused person. There is also an appeal by the accused directed against the decision of the Sessions Judge convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C., and passing the sentence of death upon him. At the very-outset, our attention was drawn by the learned advocate appearing for the accused to a note made by the learned Judge in the record to the following effect: When the Court was ready to begin the case, learned pleader for the accused asked verbally for an adjournment in order that the accused might be kept under mental observation. His request was based only on an impression he had gained while taking instructions from the accused. I can see no reason for thinking he is of unsound mind or incapable of making his defence. His behaviour in the dock is perfectly normal. He listened intelligently to the charge, and gave a clear plea in answer to it. No suggestion has been made before that he is in any way mentally unsound. He has been in jail awaiting his trial, and presumably the civil surgeon or jail doctor would have noticed and reported any mental abnormality. The only course available to me would be action under Section 465, Criminal P.C. I can see no reason whatever for taking such action. Nor do I see any reason for incurring the expense to Government and inconvenience to witnesses which would result from an adjournment. I consider the accused perfectly normal in mind, judging from his behaviour.

(2.) This note was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on 31 May 1937. It was urged before us on behalf of the accused that it was incumbent upon the Sessions Judge to adjourn the trial in view of the provisions contained in Section 465, Criminal P. C; it was contended that there was no option left in the Judge in the matter of granting an adjournment for the purpose of ascertaining whether the accused was of unsound mind, and whether he was in a position to take his trial before the Court of Session. It seems to us that the argument advanced in this behalf in favour of the accused person entirely overlooks the two different stages of procedure contemplated by Section 465, Criminal P.C. Section 465 of the Code contains the provision that if any person committed for trial before a Court of Session appears to the Court at his trial to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the jury or the Court with the aid of assessors, shall, 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 affect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case and the jury, if any, shall be discharged.

(3.) The first stage in the procedure laid down by the section is that it must appear to the Court that the accused placed on his trial was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. The next stage that was to follow when it appeared to the Judge that the accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence was that the fact of such unsoundness of mind and incapacity should be inquired into on the materials placed before the Court. In the case before us, as it appears from the Judge's note, there was merely a verbal application made by the pleader for the accused for an adjournment in order that the accused may be kept under mental observation. The Judge on that recorded his opinion that there was no reason for thinking that the accused was of unsound mind or incapable of making his defence. It was further noted by the Judge that no suggestion had been made, before the trial commenced, that the accused was in any way mentally unsound and incapable of taking his trial. In that view of the case, it appears to us to be clear that the provisions contained in Section 465 could have no possible application to the case before us. It did not appear, in the case before us, to the Judge that the accused was of unsound mind or that he was incapable of making his defence and it was not therefore necessary, much less was it incumbent upon the Judge to adopt the procedure provided by the second part of Section 465, namely to hold an inquiry as to the unsoundness of mind of the accused placed on his trial, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he Was incapable of making his defence. The learned Judge in his note has adverted to circumstances which made it clear that the accused was not of unsound mind, and that he was not incapable of making his defence. He has made special reference to the statement made by the accused before the Court in his defence and on that, and from the demeanour of the accused in Court, the Judge came to the conclusion that the accused was perfectly normal in mind judging from his behaviour.