O R D E R

% 09.08.2024 CRL.M.A. 23613/2024 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 23614/2024 (stay)

CRL.REV.P. 1013/2024 By way of the present revision petition filed under sections

442/438 read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner impugns order dated 03.05.2024 made by the learned Special Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case bearing SC No. 7534/16 arising from FIR No.265/2012 dated 26.10.2012 registered under sections 302/452 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Fatehpur Beri, Delhi by which the learned Special Judge has rejected the petitioner’s application under sections 328/329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking postponement of further proceedings in the trial, on the ground that the petitioner is of unsound mind and therefore is incapacitated from facing trial.

2. At the outset, Mr. Luv Manan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that though the prayer in the main petition seeks a direction for fresh psychological examination of the petitioner, the petitioner in fact seeks postponement of his trial on the basis of his psychological evaluation which has already been conducted under directions of this court by the Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, Dilshad Garden, Delhi (‘IHBAS’), as detailed in the petition.

3. Considering the nature of the matter, and in order to obviate any unnecessary delay, instead of directing the petitioner to file an amended petition, the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit setting- out the amended direction that he seeks in the matter, before the next date; with a copy to the opposing counsel.

4. In the meantime, proceeding further with the matter, the prayer in the petition is read as seeking a direction for postponement of trial as referred to above.

5. Mr. Manan argues, that as narrated in the impugned order itself, vide order dated 22.01.2021 made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in CRL.REV.P. No. 935/2018, this court had directed IHBAS to evaluate the petitioner’s mental state and to assess whether the petitioner is suffering from any mental illness.

6. It is submitted that pursuant to that order, a medical board was constituted by IHBAS, which submitted a report dated 13.04.2021, a copy of which is appended to the petition. In their report the medical board has opined that the petitioner “… …has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia with predominant negative symptoms.”, while clarifying that there is no record of the petitioner’s mental illness prior to 2014 and therefore “… …it is difficult for the standing medical board to opine about the petitioner’s mental status at the time of the alleged incident.”, which incident is stated to have occurred on

26.10.2012.

7. Mr. Manan argues that the petitioner’s prayer today is not a claim under section 84 IPC, viz. a defence that by reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act; but the prayer in the present petition is limited to a claim under section 329 of the Cr.P.C. (now section 368 of the BNSS), viz. that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the petitioner is incapable of standing trial; and that therefore the trial must be postponed.

8. Mr. Manan submits that report dated 13.04.2021 rendered by IHBAS was on the record before the learned Special Judge; and the Head of the Department (Psychiatry), IHBAS was also examined by the court, who affirmed the contents of the report.

9. It is submitted however, that on 19.12.2019 the examining doctor at IHBAS had recorded certain observations in respect to the petitioner, which say that during the doctor’s interaction with the petitioner on the said date, it was found that the petitioner had “… … walked in unaided, properly dressed and tidy. He was cooperative and attentive. He also gave relevant answers to the questions put to him and also maintained