Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Babu, J.
Yasin Sunu – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1058 OF 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 - Section 8, 7, 9(m), (i), 10 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 511, 377 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 329 - Mental problems - Medical examination - Incapable of understanding consequences of his acts - Application pleading that petitioner had mental problems and that he was incapable of understanding consequences of his acts - Learned counsel for petitioner wanted to subject petitioner to medical examination – If there is something in demeanour of accused or in facts of case, which raise doubt in mind of Court that accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, it is obligatory on Court to try fact before proceeding with trial into charge - Para 11.
Finding of the Court :
If, on examining accused, it does not appear to him that accused is insane, it is not necessary that he should go further and send for and examine medical witnesses and other relevant evidence - Of course, if he has any serious doubt in matter, Sessions Judge should hold a proper enquiry - Proceedings before Court below would reveal that accused has actively participated in trial - Trial Judge recorded that witness was examined by counsel for defence after getting proper instructions from him and in examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, he was found to be capable of answering all questions put to him - It seems that Sessions Judge examined accused and was satisfied that it did not appear to him that accused was insane - Consequently, Trial Court held that no enquiry under Section 329 Cr.P.C. was required.
Result: Crl.M.C. dismissed.
ORDER :
The challenge in this Crl.M.C is to the order dated 19.01.2023 in CMP No.8(a)/2023 in Sessions Case No. 754/2020 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Koyilandi. The petitioner faces charges under Section 8 r/w Sections 7, 9(m), and 9(i) r/w Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 511 r/w Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Court below proceeded with the trial. The petitioner participated in the trial. After examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court posted the case for defence evidence. The counsel for the petitioner submitted an application pleading that the petitioner had mental problems and that he was incapable of understanding the consequences of his acts. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to subject the petitioner to medical examination.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the application contending that the petitioner/accused was capable of understanding the proceedings and no materials were produced before the Court to show that the petitioner had mental incapacity of any nature at any time.
4. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court passed the following order :
The petitioner is already on bail. In the petition itself it is mentioned that he want to make his mental condition as a defence against the prosecution allegation. The petitioner is free to make any defence with respect to the case against him. But there is no need for this court to send petitioner before the medial board for understanding his mental condition. Such steps are required only in a case where enquiry u/s. 328, 329 Cr.P.C. are conducted. In this case no such enquiry is warranted.(sic)”
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.
6. Is the Court always bound to conduct a detailed enquiry, whenever a counsel for the accused raises a point before a Sessions Judge that the accused is of unsound mind?
7. The relevant statutory provision is Section 329 Cr.P.C., which reads thus :-
(emphasis added)
8. Going by the statutory provision, the essential condition for the applicability of this Section is that it must appear to the Court that the accused brought before it is of unsound mind.
9. The word ‘appears’ in the provision is guidance for construction. It refers to a circumstance with some indication that makes it appear t
Section 329 Cr.P.C., which reads Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court.
Point of Law : Section 105 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 deals with procedure to be followed in a judicial process where any proof of mental illness of a person is produced.
Section 329 of the Cr.P.C applies only after charges are framed, making premature applications inadmissible.
Accused's fitness to stand trial must be thoroughly examined, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements while allowing opportunity for defense representation.
The court established that the assessment of an accused's mental state must rely on medical evidence, and active participation in proceedings indicates capability to defend oneself.
The court emphasized the right to present a defense and the importance of examining pertinent evidence to resolve issues regarding the accused's mental state.
The failure to assess the appellant's mental fitness before trial constituted a serious procedural irregularity, necessitating the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
