'What Is Not An Offence Does Not Require A Defence': Madras HC Explains Procedure For Inquiry/ Trial Against An Accused Of Unsound Mind [Read Judgment]

In a recent verdict, the Single Bench of Justice PN Prakash of the Madras High Court extensively explained the procedure to be adopted by the Courts during Inquiry/ Trial for an offence, allegedly committed by a person of unsound mind. The Court has examined various aspects of the matter including: Magisterial Inquiry under Section 328 CrPCTrial under Section 329 CrPCApplication of Chapter IV of IPC: General exceptionsDischarge of accused after commencement of TrialDifference between a 'Mentally Ill Person' and 'Person suffering from Mental Retardation' The order has come in a petition filed by the father of a murder accused, apprehending that a trial against his son shall be commenced without ascertaining the mental state of schizophrenia. Upon a finding submitted by the Medical Board of a Government Hospital, the High Court was satisfied that the accused was not fit to face the trial due to his mental illness and hence dropped the proceedings against him in terms of Section 84 of IPC. The Court noted that despite raising of plea of insanity at the outset, the Magistrate commenced the proceedings under Sections 207 and 209 CrPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Even during the committal proceedings, the Magistrate did not take any steps to satisfy himself as to whether the accused was in a sound state of mind to understand the proceedings. In this backdrop the Court observed: "The expression "inquiry" is defined in Section 2(g) to mean every inquiry, other than a trial, under the Code. These may include proceedings relating to remand, bail, taking of cognizance, issuance of process, furnishing of copies, committal proceedings and framing of charges. In this case, though there were sufficient materials to indicate that Kaliyappan [accused] was suffering from mental illness even at the stage of committal, no steps were taken by the committal Court under Section 328 Cr.P.C." Magisterial Inquiry under Section 328 CrPC Section 328 CrPC lays down the procedure for holding an 'inquiry' in respect of an accused of unsound mind. Broadly, it provides that if a Magistrate holding an inquiry has reason to believe that the person against whom the inquiry is being held is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, he shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness of mind, and shall cause such person to be examined by the prescribed medical authority. In terms of the medical report, if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and the Magistrate finds that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, he shall discharge the accused However, if the Magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, he shall postpone the proceeding for such period, as in the opinion of the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, is required for the treatment of the accused. The provision further provides that if the accused suffers from mental retardation, the Magistrate shall further determine whether the mental retardation renders the accused incapable of entering defence, and if the accused is found so incapable, the Magistrate shall order closure of the inquiry. Elaborating on this legislative stipulation, the Court observed thus: "The inquiry in respect of persons of unsound mind is governed by Section 328(3) CrPC, whereas, the enquiry in respect of persons suffering from mental retardation is governed by Section 328(4) CrPC. In either category, the first stage is that, if the Magistrate receives information that the accused is of unsound mind or suffers from mental retardation, he is required to determine whether such condition, in praesenti, renders the accused incapable of entering defence. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the Code prescribes two different consequences depending on whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental retardation. If the case falls in category one (persons of unsound mind), the Magistrate is required to examine the record of evidence, hear the advocate for the accused, and may discharge the accused if he finds that no prima facie case has been made out. If a prima facie case is made out, the Magistrate is required to follow the procedure set out in the proviso to Section 328(3) Cr.P.C. If the case falls in category two (persons suffering from mental retardation), Section 328(4) CrPC empowers the Magistrate to immediately order closure of the enquiry and direct that the accused be dealt with under Section 330 CrPC." Trial under Section 329 CrPC Unlike Section 328, Section 329 of CrPC operates at the stage of trial, i.e. after framing of charges. Broadly, it provides that an accused before the Magistrate/ Sessions Court during trial appears to be of unsound mind, the Court shall, after considering such unsoundness and incapacity, record a finding to that ...

'What Is Not An Offence Does Not Require A Defence': Madras HC Explains Procedure For Inquiry/ Trial Against An Accused Of Unsound Mind [Read Judgment]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

'What Is Not An Offence Does Not Require A Defence': Madras HC Explains Procedure For Inquiry/ Trial Against An Accused Of Unsound Mind [Read Judgment]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers