IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE BOT" DAY OF JULY, 2009"
PRESENT _ E THE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H 3 E
AND _
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 'V
CrI.A. NO. .2"0G5V_ 'V E
BETwEEN:- E"
CHANDRA SHEKAR,
S/O. C}IIKKAMANIYAIAH';'~ -- if '
CON. NO, 144.55.,» .
CENTRAL PRISON,
MYSORE. ._ ' '
. K! APPELLANT
{BY SR1 PPASHAN'1'H"CHANDRA, AMICUS CURIAE)
CIRCLE HISPECTOR OF POLICE,
{BY BHAVANI SINGH, SPP}
BADNAVALUJ'
BY'-»__SPEfCiAL,~' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
' . RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A. IS PREFERRED BY THE
APPELLANT/ CONVI CT/ ACCUSED THROUGH THE
.1′ ___SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MYSORE, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DT.26.11.05 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-
III. MYSORE, IN S.C.NO.1l9/05 — CONVICTING THE
CONVICT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/S.302 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO RI
V,
4
This page is replaced vide Court order dated 19.04.2010 E
deceasecl._ But with regard to the nature of
court has failed to taken into consideration.”theta:
evidence.
The accused during the trial:’–.vvas in ..pAc’L1stOd}:1f.’~..The
accused was treated in by I)_\fv’1VAlffrofi1f2’7.l:.2004′ 2
till 22.10.2005. DW1_,.after t’riefff.t’i’ea”trrient cer’tifi.e-5:1 that the
accused is fit to face took place. The
evidence of was suffering
from of PW7 – father of
the aacVcufsed..fyears prior to the incident
the for mental illness. The above
evidence c’l.ea1’l§/Vgdisclofses that the accused was suffering
;gPa1’anoidffffschizophrenia. About 5 months after the
V .’Vincident.l examined the accused and given treatment. It
that the diseases like Paranoid schizophrenia
cannoterupt overnight or come at once. The mental illness is
ioffsuch a nature that it persists and slowly develops over a
period of time. In the circumstances, the accused was
diagnosed to be suffering from Paranoid schizophrenia on
27.1.2004, just 8 months earlier to the incident. Ex.D.1 is
d,
5
This page is replaced vide Court order dated 19.04.2010
..L/
the medical certificate, which shows that the accused was
taking treatment in 2003 for schizophrenia.
The motive for the offence is also pyetgroc foifa. trivial
reason. No normal human being; woiiid reacts.__”Vso_ yioiently
when parents proposed to get hi’n.1:”rnarried;’_; A°1’hisV”Vi’o.1eritp
reaction is a very abnormaideonduct of._the human
being. In that context, /the’ darzcused has “treated for
schizophrenia earlier to the incdidentpdanfdvinjimediately after 8
months after «1-11;e; thte trial the accused
Was trdeated ro}”t:v}:r a period of one and half
years’-would the time of the incident, the
accused twas’ .t1V.ndAerV’thVe spell of Paranoid schizophrenia
a xdtendency to provoke Violent conduct and
V beh aidor. in V
View of the matter the accused would be
entitled.’ the benefit u/s 84 of the IPC. Accordingly, the
V» 0 order of conviction re orded is set aside.
6
This page is inserted vide Court order dated 19.04.2010
The appeal is partly allowed. The accused isf&i–rected
to be set free forthwith if not required to be Zvany
other case.
The Amicus Curiae fee is éLi«Rs-«..5000:/’~e.. _T1fie:V’Stette 0 7
shail pay the fee to the Amieus cu}:aé–..V_%0
3e§;”fLIhdG9
003* “” Iudqe