Division Bench holds repeated non-compliance with Section 329 CrPC vitiated murder trial; orders accused to remain in safe custody at State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the death sentence awarded to Sanjay Singh in a triple murder case, holding that the trial stood vitiated because the courts failed to properly follow the mandatory procedure for dealing with an accused suffering from mental illness.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2026 and Death Reference No. 1 of 2026 on October 14, 2026, acquitted Singh of charges under Sections 302, 316 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court directed that he be kept in safe custody at the State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, Dehradun, under Section 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as he continues to suffer from schizophrenia.
The case arose from a December 13, 2024 incident in Tehri Garhwal, where Singh was accused of killing his brother, mother and pregnant sister-in-law with a sword. A sessions court had convicted him and awarded the death penalty, along with additional sentences for causing the death of an unborn child and destruction of evidence. That conviction had earlier been set aside in 2022 by the High Court, which had remanded the matter for fresh consideration after finding that the trial court had not complied with Section 329 CrPC and Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
After remand, the trial court again proceeded with the case on the basis of a medical report stating that Singh was “fit for trial.” It framed charges afresh and treated the earlier examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses as valid, calling them only for cross-examination. But the High Court found that this approach was legally flawed because the earlier evidence had been recorded during a period when Singh was mentally unwell and incapable of understanding the proceedings.
The Bench emphasized that Section 329 CrPC requires the court to first determine whether an accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. If so, the court must postpone the proceedings and ensure treatment. The judges said this safeguard is not a mere formality but a substantive protection for a mentally ill accused who may be unable to understand the case, instruct counsel or answer questions.
The High Court closely examined the medical record and found that concerns about Singh’s mental health existed from the very beginning. On December 14, 2014, immediately after the incident, a doctor had recorded that while Singh was physically fit, “mental illness may be present” and referred him for psychological evaluation. Over the years, multiple reports from medical institutions, including AIIMS Rishikesh and the State Mental Health Institute, described him as suffering from psychosis and schizophrenia.
The Bench noted that even after remand, the trial court failed to halt proceedings when Singh repeatedly did not answer questions under Section 313 CrPC. A June 7, 2024 report from AIIMS Rishikesh stated that he was suffering from “schizophrenia — currently in partial remission,” required continued treatment and regular follow-ups, and only appeared fit to stand trial at that stage. Despite this, the trial court continued the proceedings and eventually treated his silence under Section 313 as if he had nothing to say.
Calling this a “gross non-compliance” of Section 329 CrPC, the High Court held that the trial was vitiated. It further ruled that merely being physically present in court does not satisfy Section 273 CrPC if the accused is mentally incapable of understanding what is being said against him. As a result, the earlier prosecution evidence, recorded when Singh was not mentally fit, could not be relied upon.
The court said that once this tainted evidence was excluded, there was effectively no legal evidence left to sustain the conviction, apart from fresh medical testimony. On that ground alone, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench then considered whether Singh was entitled to the defence of insanity under Section 84 IPC. Referring to the consistent medical history and the fact that he was examined immediately after the incident, the court held that Singh was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence and was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra and Prakash Nayi alias Sen v. State of Goa, the High Court observed that later improvement or temporary fitness to stand trial does not negate prior insanity. It concluded that Singh was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC and therefore deserved acquittal.
At the same time, the court declined to release him outright. It noted that a fresh medical board report dated August 25, 2026 confirmed that he still suffers from schizophrenia and that his illness had led to homicidal tendencies. The judges therefore ordered that he remain in safe custody at the State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, until treatment is completed. Thereafter, the State Government has been asked to make suitable arrangements in accordance with the Uttarakhand Mental Healthcare (Rights of Persons with Mental Illness) Rules, 2023.
With this ruling, the High Court allowed Singh’s appeal, set aside the trial court’s February 2026 judgment, acquitted him of all charges, and answered the death sentence reference accordingly.
Bottom Line:
Non-compliance of Section 329 CrPC in case of mentally ill accused vitiates trial; evidence recorded when accused was incapable of understanding proceedings cannot be relied upon; accused suffering from schizophrenia held entitled to benefit of Section 84 IPC and acquitted, but directed to be kept in safe custody under Section 335 CrPC.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 329, 273, 313, 335, 334, 330, 366 CrPC; Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017; Sections 302, 316, 201, 84 IPC; Uttarakhand Mental Healthcare (Rights of Persons with Mental Illness) Rules, 2023
Sanjay Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (Utt)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2998096
