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