Fresh Judicial Inquiry Must Be Conducted To Determine Whether Accused Earlier Declared Mentally Ill Is Capable Of Defending Himself: Kerala HC

“The mere assessment as to whether the accused is having mental illness or not, by referring the matter to the Mental Health Review Board, would not serve any purpose, unless the opinion sought to be obtained is whether the unsoundness of mind of the accused is of such an extent which would render him incapable of making his defence,” it observed.

The Court held that a medical opinion alone is not sufficient. The trial court must conduct a formal judicial enquiry, record specific findings on the accused's current mental capacity, and provide an opportunity for participation and challenge by the accused or their representative.

The ruling came in a Criminal Original Petition, where the petitioner — the father of a man accused of uxoricide. The trial was postponed after multiple medical assessments, where he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and deemed unfit to stand trial under section 329 CrPC. In 2024, a fresh medical report declared that although the accused has schizophrenia, he was “fit to stand trial” with continued medication. Based on this report, the Session Court scheduled the case for framing of charges without holding a fresh hearing or allowing cross-examination of the psychiatrist. The petitioner challenged this process, arguing that the procedure violated both CrPC and mental health laws.

Justice G Girish, examined the legal questions surrounding the procedures under Sections 329 (procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court), 331 (Resumption of Inquiry or Trial), and 332 (Procedure on accused appearing before Magistrate) of the CrPC and the relevance of Section 105 (Question of mental illness in judicial process) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The key legal question addressed was:

“Is it legally permissible for a trial court to resume proceedings against an accused previously declared incapable of making a defence, solely on the basis of a subsequent medical report? Or must the court conduct a fresh judicial enquiry under Sections 329 and 332 CrPC?”

The Court noted that the enquiry contemplated under Section 328 and 329 of CrPC is to determine whether the accused facing trial in a case is capable of making a defence, or incapable of making a defence due to unsoundness of mind.

The Court noted that Section 329(2) of CrPC requires the court to determine, via enquiry, whether the accused's mental condition renders him incapable of defending himself, even after an earlier finding of unfitness has been reversed by a medical report.

“The finding in the above regard has to be arrived by the Court not by merely perusing the report of the Medical Officers concerned. The Medical Officer, who is competent to state about the treatment administered to the accused, the mental condition of the accused and the reasons why he was found to have attained the capability of standing trial, shall be examined in detail before the Trial Court on the above aspects. ” the Court observed.

Court underscored that the accused or his representative must be given the opportunity to cross-examine Medical officer and other witnesses, submit contrary evidence and be heard before finding is entered on medical competence. Failure to afford this opportunity vitiates the proceedings, the Court held.

“Opportunity to the accused or the person representing him to participate in such limited enquiry, is having paramount importance.” it added.

The petitioner had argued that the Sessions Court should have referred the question of mental illness to the Mental Health Review Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 once the fitness to stand trial was disputed again. The Court clarified that Section 105 is not an overriding provision and is not mandatory where the comprehensive procedures under Section 328 and 329 CrPC have been followed.

The Court directed the Session Court to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine Junior Consultant Psychiatrist, who was examined before the Court while accepting the medical report and adduce further evidence with regard to mental illness of the accused. The Court directed the Sessions Court conduct fresh judicial assessment as to whether trial has to be proceeded in the case against the accused. The court partly allowed the petition and set aside impugned order of the Sessions Court to the extent it allowed resumption of the trial without enquiry.

Case Title - Jose v The Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 489

Case No - OP(Crl) 692/ 2024

Counsel for Petitioner - Rajesh Chakyat

Counsel for Respondent - Sarath Babu Kottakkal, Archana Vijayan, Pushpalatha M K