Court says trial judge ignored psychiatric report and doctors’ testimony showing mild intellectual disability; directs decision under Sections 329 and 330 Cr.P.C. within two months
The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Court, Bhandara, which had rejected the discharge application of an accused facing charges under the IPC and POCSO Act despite medical evidence suggesting mild intellectual disability.
Justice Mehroz K. Pathan held that the trial court had acted perversely in concluding that there was no consistent medical opinion about the accused’s unsoundness of mind. The High Court noted that the psychiatric assessment report described the accused as suffering from mild intellectual disability, and the evidence of three doctors consistently indicated that he was unable to understand the consequences of his actions, could not answer questions rationally, and was incapable of defending himself independently.
The accused, Lucky @ Pankaj, was being prosecuted for offences under Sections 323, 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He had sought discharge on the ground that he was mentally incapacitated and unable to comprehend the proceedings or the consequences of his conduct.
According to the High Court, once material suggested that the accused may be of unsound mind and incapable of entering defence, the trial court was required to undertake the procedure laid down under Section 329 Cr.P.C. This included recording a finding on incapacity, examining the prosecution evidence to determine whether a prima facie case existed, and then deciding whether the accused should be discharged or dealt with under Section 330 Cr.P.C.
The Court emphasized that the trial court had failed to carry out this mandatory exercise. Instead, it had rejected the application merely on the ground that the doctors had not used identical language or given a formally “consistent” opinion that the accused was of unsound mind. The High Court found this approach contrary to the record and observed that the trial court had ignored the substance of the medical evidence.
Relying on the reasoning adopted by the Madras High Court in Kaliyappan v. State, the Bombay High Court reiterated that discharge under Section 329(2) Cr.P.C. may be considered even at the trial stage after framing of charge, and that the court must first assess whether the accused is incapable of entering defence. If such incapacity is found, the court must then examine whether a prima facie case is made out and whether release can be ordered under Section 330(3) Cr.P.C., keeping in view the nature of the alleged act and the extent of mental incapacity.
Finding the trial court’s order unsustainable, the High Court quashed it and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The trial court has been directed to form a prima facie opinion on whether sufficient material exists in the charge-sheet and thereafter proceed in accordance with Section 330(3) Cr.P.C. The exercise must be completed within two months.
The revision application was accordingly allowed.
Bottom Line :
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Accused suffering from mild intellectual disability/unsoundness of mind and incapable of entering defence - Trial Court must record finding on such incapacity, examine whether prima facie case is made out and then proceed in terms of Sections 329(2) and 330 Cr.P.C. - Rejection of discharge application on erroneous view that there was no consistent medical opinion held perverse - Matter remanded.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 323 IPC, 354 IPC, 354A IPC, Sections 8, 10, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 227, 328, 329(1), 329(1A), 329(2), 330(3) Cr.P.C.
Lucky @ Pankaj v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985125
