IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the trial court has the discretion to determine a defendant's mental capacity to stand trial based on evidence presented, without being compelled to conduct an elaborate inquiry.

ORDER :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-2023 passed in ST No. 28/2023 by 5th ASJ, Mhow, Indore whereby the learned Session Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under section 329 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that an FIR bearing Crime No. 74/2023 was lodged on 21-2-2023 at P. S. Simrol, District Indore, Dehat for committing the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on 20-2-2023 at about 04:00 PM, the accused intercepted the deceased, poured petrol on her and set her ablaze. During treatment, she expired on 25-2-2023. Subsequently the offences under sections 302, 195-A and 201 of Indian Penal Code were added. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the matter is under trial.

3. During pendency of the trial, the petitioner has filed an application under section 329 of Criminal Procedure Code before the learned trial Court to suspend the trial by submitting that after the elaborate medical examination, a team of doctors of FMYH Hospital Indore and Medical Examination Board has found that the petitioner is suffering from “delusion of control” along with auditory hallucinations. It is further submitted that in this context, the learned trial Court has also taken the statements of concerned medical officer, but the learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the psychiatrist, the petitioner required for 15 days stay in hospital to ascertain psychiatric condition of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has also committed grave error of law by denying the accused’s opportunity of cross-examination of medical Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to mental health treatment, the petitioner is not able to appear before the trial Court in trial proceedings. He further submits that petitioner has been prescribed medications to address anxiety and insomnia while the trial Court erroneously concludes that there is no medical history of the petitioner. The trial Court has wrongly made oversight the medical board report of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital for 12 days. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is in the capacity to defend himself and it is also submitted that some facts have wrongly been mentioned in the petition filed by the petitioner like the petitioner was diagnosed as “Delusion of control and passivity along with auditory hallucinations” while in the petition “Dilution of control and passivity along with auditory hallucinations” has been mentioned. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and already facing two trials and in those cases, he has not filed any application under section 329 of Criminal Procedure Code for suspending the trial. It is further submitted that from the face para No. 9 of the petition, the petitioner himself has admitted that “however, to arrive at a definitive diagnosis, further psychometric evaluation is required which is beyond the capabilities of this department”, hence, such type of question mark on the health department to protect an accused of murder is definitely questionable. Therefore, on these grounds, the prayer of the petitioner be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also supports the contentions made by the counsel for the complainant and prays for rejection of the petition.

7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. It is clear that the learned trial Court prior to passing the impugned order, has examined the petitioner, medical Officer, Medical Officer of concerned Jail as well as the report of prisoners regarding behavior