Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 168
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
LAKSHMI KANT PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
W.P.(Cr.) 652 / 2024
Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate; Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC-I; Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I; Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
The court upheld that Alzheimer's disease does not equate to unsoundness of mind under criminal law, requiring the accused to prove mental incapacity to seek exemptions from liability.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 329 and 330 - Writ petition to quash order for constitution of Medical Board to determine unsoundness of mind - The Medical Board found that the petitioner suffers from Alzheimer's Disease but not equivalent to unsoundness of mind - The Revisional Court upheld the Magistrate's order, dismissing the challenge - The petitioner failed to prove unsoundness of mind under relevant provisions. (Paras 2, 3, 11, 12)
(B) Criminal Liability - The accused must prove mental disorder to seek exemptions from liability - The court's role is to ensure fair trial for those with mental disabilities. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate who constituted a Medical Board to assess his mental state in a long-standing criminal complaint. The Board concluded that while he suffers from Alzheimer's, it does not equate to unsoundness of mind, leading to the dismissal of his revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as the Medical Board's report was specific to the petitioner and did not support his claims of unsoundness of mind.
Issues: The court addressed whether Alzheimer's disease constitutes unsoundness of mind and the legality of the Medical Board's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner did not establish a legal basis for claiming unsoundness of mind, and the Medical Board's report was conclusive.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) for quashing/set aside, with all consequences, the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.492 of 2023 by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi upheld the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 713 of 1999.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who is an accused person of Complaint Case No.713 of 1999 filed a petition with a prayer to quash an order for constitution of Medical Board to determine the unsoundness of the mind of the petitioner invoking the power of the learned Judicial Magistrate- XIII, Ranchi under Section 329 read with 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi formulated the following two questions and the Medical Board answered the same as follows:-
Qn. No. (i) Whether the petitioner- accused of Complaint Case No.713 of 1999 namely Lakshmi Kant Prasad is suffering from Alzheimer disease or not?
Answer:- The petitioner/accused Lakshmi Kant Prasad is suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease Severe Grade (ICD-10/FOO1).
Qn. No. (ii) Whether a person suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease may be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind or not?
Answer:- A person suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease may not be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind.
And after such report being received by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi, the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi proceeded with the trial. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 17.08.2023 passed in complaint case No.713 of 1999 by filing Criminal Revision No.492 of 2023. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi relied upon the answer No.2 of the Medical Board that Alzheimer’s disease may not be treated as equal to a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind and did not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi and dismissed the Criminal Revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs. State of Goa reported in (2023) 5 SCC 673 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the whole idea under the provisions of Chapter-XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability and the role of the court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta reported in (2012) 1 SCC 602 paragraph-19 of which reads as under:-
“19. From the abovestated principles, it is clear that a person alleged to be suffering from any mental disorder cannot be exempted from criminal liability ipso facto. The onus would be on the accused to prove by expert evidence that he is suffering from such mental disorder or mental condition that he could not be expected to be aware of the consequences of his act. Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self- control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.”
and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in respect of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code has observed that inter alia if a person is found
