- (1.) THIS appeal is an appeal by Shrimati Satya Devi, aged 40 years, wife of ram partap and a resident of village Gurditpura in Police Station Sadar Nabha, against the judgment dated the 22nd of July, 1966, of Shri P. N. Thukral, Sessions Judge, patiala convicting her of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.
(2.) WE need not set out the prosecution case as we find that the trial held by the learned Sessions Judge is completely vitiated because the allegation as to the unsoundness of mind of the appellant was not investigated in accordance with the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as follows: " 465. (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 defence, the Jury, or 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 fruther 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. " The section contemplates two stages of procedure. The first stage laid down is that it must appear to the trial Judge that the accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. The second stage consists of an enquiry into the unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused. Where it does not appear to the Judge that the accused is of unsound mind and, therefore, incapable of makimg his defence it is not necessary, much less incumbment, upon the judge to adopt the procedure provided in the section but once his suspicions about the sanity of the accused are aroused or he is not absolutely certain of such sanity, he is bound, in our opinion, to follow the procedure contemplated by the second stage mentioned in the section. It is not enough for the Judge when circumstances exist such as would indicate that the accused may or may not be insane. It would be his duty in such a case, on the other hand, to try the question of sanity as laid down in section 465 and then to decide whethere the accused was or was not sane. This is the true interpretation of what that section lays down. The circumstances in which the question of insanity was raised before the learned sessions Judge in the present case may now be stated. On the 21st of July,1966, which was the date on which the trial was held, Shri Vijay Tewari, Advocate, who was appointed to defend the appellant at State expense, made the following statement in Court: "i have been engaged by the State to defend the accused. In the first week of July, 1966. I met the accused in the Central Jail, Patiala, in order to make instructions from her regarding her defence. I enquired from her as to whether she has any relations to whom I could write on her behalf and what instructions she wanted to give to me to any coherent reply and sasid that none was her mother and father, a number of times. She did not give me any instructions. From a perusal of the record I found that the accused had confessed her guilt in the committing Court and so I enquired from her as to what stand she wanted to take regarding this confession but the accused did not give any reply. " Immediately after this statement was made, the appellant was generally examined by the learned Sessions Judge in the presence of Dr. Dharsam Vir Sehgal, incharge Civil Hospital, Nabha, who had performed the autopsy of Yugdopal, the victim in the case, whereafter Dr. Sehgal made the following statement: "the accused has been generally examined by the Court in my presence. It is not possible for me to express any definite opinion regarding the mental condition of the accused. However, a mere look at her face shows that she is to some extent abnormal. " The learned Sessions Judge then recorded the following order on the file: "the accused has been examined generally. She is able to tell her name. When Shri Jagan Nath P. W. younger brother of her husband was called in the Court, the accused was able to identify him and said that he was her husband's brother. However, when asked as to what her age was, she replied that she did not know and when asked as to when she was married, she did not give any reply. When asked to identify her husband's brother, the accused folded her hands and addressing Jagan nath said that he should forgive her. It appears from her general examination that the accused is a simpleton and she does not appear to be insane though she is helpless because neither her husband nor her children appeared to be interested in her or take any interst in her defence. " and proceeded with the trial of the appellant without following the procedure contemplated by the second stage mentioned in section 465 of the Code of criminal Procedure and in disregard of the implications of the statement made by dr. Sehgal. The trial was concluded on the same day and the judgment was pronounced on the next day. In the course of the judgment, the learned Sessions judge adverted to his order dated the 21st of July, 1966, above-quoted, remarked "the above view of mine that the accused was capable of making her defence was confirmed was confirmed when after the conclusion of the trial the accused gave rational answers to all the questions put to her when she was examined under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure code. Seh even suggested a counter theory of her own accord that yugdopal had died because he was run over by a cart and she was not to be blamed. She has also stated that she did not make a confession in the Court of the Committing Magistrate and was not guilty of the offence of which she has been charged. "
(3.) WE are fully satisfied from the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge dealt with the question of the appellant's sanity, that he was not absolutely certain of her mental state being such as not to attract the provisions of section 465. In any case, it does appear that the existence of the circumstances related by Shri tewari and the statement made by Dr. Sehgal provided enough material coupled with some of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge from the examination of the appellant and mentioned in the order dated the 21st of July, 1966, which should have created a very reasonable suspicion in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge about the sanity of the appellant and the least that he should have done was to obtain medical opinion about the mental condition of the appellant before holding that he was satisfied about her sanity. The provisions of section 465 do not embrace an idle formality but are calculated to ensure to an accused person a fair trial which cannot obviously be afforded to an insane person and non-observance of those provisions must be held to convert a trial into a farce. Courts must, therefore, guard against dealing with the matter of suspected sanity of an accused person in a perfunctory manner as such a course is bound to result in the trial Judge, more often than not, coming to an incorrect conclusion about the sanity of the accused before him. In the present case the appellant was charged with a capital offence but she refused to give any instructions to Shri tewari who also found that her replies to questions put to her by him were incoherent, irrelevant and repetitive. Again, Dr. Sehgal was of the opinion that the appellant meant that the doctor regarded her being a dement. Dr. Sehgal stated in categorical terms that it was not possible for him to express any opinion regarding the mental condition of the appellant even though she had been examined generally by the Court in his presence. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was a simpleton but "though she is helpless because neither her husband nor her children appeared to be interested in her or take any interest in her defence". It may be that the reason given by him itself weighed that the appellant was not insane but only a simpleton but then that reason fill the lacuna which the trial suffers from by reason of the learned Sessions Judge not following the procedure envisaged by the second stage mentioned in section 465.;