An accused's mental fitness must be properly assessed to ensure a fair trial, and failure to do so violates due process rights.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

This appeal is preferred, by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Thiruvananthapuram finding him guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and consequently sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for committing uxoricide.

2. Before we deal with the facts of the instant case, it is imperative to note that the instant case starkly illustrates the systemic failure of the criminal justice system. Despite the existence of records indicating that the appellant, who is alleged to have committed the cold-blooded murder of his wife, was suffering from Bipolar Disorder accompanied by delusions of infidelity, the investigating agency failed in its duty to collect, preserve, and produce such crucial records before the Trial Magistrate. This lapse occurred from the initial stages and carried on till the final report was submitted for the purpose of committal to the Court of Session. It is significant to note that the committal court itself had, at an earlier stage, satisfied itself by examining the appellant and a psychiatrist that he was mentally unfit and unable to understand the nature of the proceedings and had directed that the accused be sent for psychiatric evaluation and treatment at the Mental Health Centre. However, acting on a report from the medical officer stating that the accused was fit to stand trial, the committal court proceeded, in a mechanical and routine manner, to commit the case to the Court of Session—without independently satisfying itself as to whether the accused was, in fact, mentally capable of understanding the proceedings and effectively defending himself in a trial for a capital offence. Unfortunately, the learned counsel who appeared for the appellant before the Trial Court also failed to raise any contention seeking the benefit of Section 84 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , which provides immunity from criminal liability for acts committed by a person of unsound mind. Although it was elicited during the cross-examination of the appellant’s sons that the appellant had been undergoing psychiatric treatment, the defence was unable to effectively bring to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant was suffering from a mental ailment of such severity as to render him incapable of making his defence. This failure, both at the stage of investigation and during trial, left the learned Sessions Judge with no option but to evaluate the evidence on record and ultimately arrive at a finding of guilt, without being apprised of the material facts that could have fundamentally altered the course of the trial.

3. With the above preface, we shall narrate the sequence of events.

4. The appellant, a 52-year-old man working as a ragpicker, was residing with his wife and their two sons, who were examined as PWs 2 and 3. As per the case of the prosecution, they were residing on the first floor of a house named S.K. Nivas, bearing Registration No. T.C.48/458(1), owned by PW1. On 23.09.2018, the appellant and the deceased went together to watch a movie. After returning from the movie, the appellant and his wife went upstairs to their residence. The prosecution alleges that at about 10:15 p.m., the appellant attacked his wife with a hatchet, inflicting multiple c