Accused's fitness to stand trial must be thoroughly examined, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements while allowing opportunity for defense representation.

JUDGMENT :

G. GIRISH, J.

What shall be the proper course to be adopted by the Trial Court when an accused, against whom the trial was once postponed, consequent to the enquiry under Section 329 Cr.P.C , is brought back with the report that he is fit to stand trial? Is the Trial Court required to refer the matter under Section 105 of the MENTAL HEALTH CARE ACT , 2017 to the Mental Health Review Board, at that stage? Should the accused be given an opportunity, before proceeding with the trial, to show that he is still incapable of making a defence? These are the issues to be resolved in this Original Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the father of the accused in S.C No.256/2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thrissur.

2. The aforesaid case relates to the commission of uxoricide by the accused who slashed the neck of his wife at the bedroom of their house, after disrobing her and laying her prone in the bed under the pretext that he wanted sexual intercourse with her.

3. While the Trial Court was about to proceed with the framing of charges, the petitioner approached with a contention that the accused is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and that he cannot stand trial. Treatment records were produced before the Sessions Court in support of the above contention. Accordingly, the Trial Court sent the accused for examination at the Mental Health Centre, Thrissur. After subjecting the accused to observation and examination for about 10 days, the Psychiatrist concerned submitted report before the learned Sessions Judge confirming that the accused suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and that he cannot stand trial. The Trial Court examined the above Psychiatrist and handed over the accused to the custody of the petitioner with a direction that the accused should be examined by a Medical Board constituted for analysing his mental condition. Accordingly, a Medical Board consisting of a senior and a junior Consultant Psychiatrist of Government Mental Health Centre was constituted. They examined the accused and submitted a report before the Trial Court. On the basis of the above report, the Senior Consultant Psychiatrist was examined before the Trial Court. Since the above Medical Officer stated before the Trial Court that there is improvement in the mental ailment of the accused due to medications, and that he is fit to stand trial, the Trial Court listed the matter for framing charges to 15.01.2021. Aggrieved by the above move, the petitioner herein preferred W.P.(C) No.1466/2021 before this Court for a direction to constitute a Medical Board under Section 329 (1A) Cr.P.C . The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the observation that it was for the Trial Court to take a decision in the matter based on the medical reports, and after conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 329 (2) Cr.P.C . It was accordingly directed that, for facilitating such enquiry, the trial in S.C No.256/2019 shall be deferred by a period of six weeks and that the Trial Court shall consider the necessity of institutionalised treatment of the accused. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the accused before the Sessions Court, which sent him for institutionalised treatment. Since the Medical Officer concerned reported that the accused was not fit to stand trial, the treatment continued. However, on 16.10.2021, the Trial Court passed an order to release the accused from the Mental Health Centre, since a report was received stating that the accused is fi