R. v. Ramadhani Crim. Rev. 10-D-72; 29/1/72; Biro, J.

 

R. v. Ramadhani Crim. Rev. 10-D-72; 29/1/72; Biro, J.

The accused was charged with causing grievous harm. A number of witnesses gave evidence to the effect that the accused assaulted his wife or concubine with an axe and there was also evidence from the accused’s relations indicating mental instability on the part of the accused. When the accused first appeared in court he said “I was provoked and cut her with an axe.” This was entered as a ‘plea of not guilty’. The magistrate acting under s. 168 A of C.P.C ordered the accused person to be detained in a mental hospital for medical examination. Later after the prosecution had closed its case the magistrate made an order under s. 168(4)” The medical report on which the magistrate based his order was signed by Consultant Psychiatrist which narrated accused’s past  record of mental instability but there was no further medical examination despite the magistrate’s earlier direction in that respect.

            Held: (1) The provocation is no defence to any charge of assault or any other offence involving violence and a plea of guilty should have been recorded. (2) The magistrate could not have acted under s. 168A of C. P. C for the court can only make a special finding of ‘mental instability’ after a proper trial. “There was not trial, as only the prosecution side was heard and no evidence was adduced by or on behalf of the accused. (The judge referred to ss. 164, 165 and 168 of C.P.C.) When a court has reason to believe that a person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the court can proceed to hear the prosecution evidence in respect of the offence and if it finds a prima facie case against him, can commit him to a mental institution for further examination and if he is eventually found to be insane, the court should record

 

(1972) H.C.D.

- 112 –

a finding to that effect. But this does not constitute a special finding, which it cannot be overstressed, is made only after a trial. However, when after a proper trial, which means that the defence has been heard and that would only apply where the accused, although he may have been insane when he committed the act with which he is charged, sufficiently lucid to understand the nature of the proceedings and conduct his defence, the court then, if it is satisfied that the accused committed the act with which he was charged, but he was insane at the time, could make a special finding as provided for in section 168(1).” (2) “Further, the medical report produced at the hearing is not really admissible in evidence. As the magistrate will not from the wording of section 168A (2) the medical report must be signed by the officer in charge of the mental hospital; wherein the accused was examined. In this instant case the so called medical report is signed by one ‘J.C. Hauli for Consultant Psychiatrist’. It is therefore inadmissible in evidence.” (3) “It is therefore directed that whether before or after the defence has been put before the court but preferably after, the accused is to be medically examined again as to his mental condition, particularly as at the date he committed the alleged offence and in this respect, in order to assist the medical officer a copy of the evidence for and on behalf of the accused should be made available to the medical officer. When the trial has been finally completed, the court should then write a judgment and made a finding whether or not it! Has been established that the accused committed the act with which he is charged, and if so whether he was insane at the time. And if the court so finds that he did commit the act, but was insane at the time, it should then make a special finding as provided for in the provisions referred to. The proceedings should then be forwarded to this Court for onward transmission to the Minister.”