The court emphasized the right to present a defense and the importance of examining pertinent evidence to resolve issues regarding the accused's mental state.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C No.2570 of

2024 of Fast Track Special Court, Kattakkada, arising out of Crime No.771 of 2024 of Malayinkeezh Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 75(1)

(i), (2) of BNS and Section 8 r/w Section 7 of the POCSO Act .

2. He filed this Crl.M.C, being aggrieved by Annexure-

IV order of the Special Judge, rejecting his application for reopening the defence evidence.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was suffering from unsoundness of mind and, in order to prove the same, examination of the doctor who issued Annexure-I certificate is necessary and that, his prayer to examine the doctor was rejected without assigning valid reasons. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the Annexure- IV order and to permit him to examine the doctor who issued Annexure-I certificate.

4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It appears that only one posting was given to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence. However, the main reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge in the Annexure- IV order for rejecting the application is that, he has not raised the ground of insanity at the time of investigation or during trial, till the case is posted for hearing.

6. However, in Annexure-IV order itself, the learned Special Judge stated that, during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, a question was put to him suggesting that the petitioner was suffering from unsoundness of mind. When the Investigating Officer was asked whether, during investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was suffering from unsoundness of mind, he denied the said suggestion. From the said question put to the Investigating officer himself, it is revealed that the question of unsoundness of mind was raised at the time of trial. It is also revealed that Annexure-I disability certificate allegedly issued by the Medical Board under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act , showing that the petitioner is suffering from 45% disability, was also produced before the leaned Special Judge.

7. In the above circumstances, it is only just and proper to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to examine Dr.Rakhi Rajagopal mentioned in Annexure-II, who allegedly issued Annexure-I and as such, this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. Annexure-IV order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2025 is allowed. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to examine Dr.Rakhi Rajagopal mentioned in Annexure-II. Take necessary steps for issuing process to the doctor within 7 days from today.