JOSE Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF PILLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What shall be the proper course to be adopted by the Trial Court when an accused, against whom the trial was once postponed, consequent to the enquiry under Sec. 329 Cr.P.C. is brought back with the report that he is fit to stand trial? Is the Trial Court required to refer the matter under Sec. 105 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 to the Mental Health Review Board, at that stage? Should the accused be given an opportunity, before proceeding with the trial, to show that he is still incapable of making a defence? These are the issues to be resolved in this Original Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the father of the accused in S.C No.256/2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thrissur.

(2.) The aforesaid case relates to the commission of uxoricide by the accused who slashed the neck of his wife at the bedroom of their house, after disrobing her and laying her prone in the bed under the pretext that he wanted sexual intercourse with her.

(3.) While the Trial Court was about to proceed with the framing of charges, the petitioner approached with a contention that the accused is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and that he cannot stand trial. Treatment records were produced before the Sessions Court in support of the above contention. Accordingly, the Trial Court sent the accused for examination at the Mental Health Centre, Thrissur. After subjecting the accused to observation and examination for about 10 days, the Psychiatrist concerned submitted report before the learned Sessions Judge confirming that the accused suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and that he cannot stand trial. The Trial Court examined the above Psychiatrist and handed over the accused to the custody of the petitioner with a direction that the accused should be examined by a Medical Board constituted for analysing his mental condition. Accordingly, a Medical Board consisting of a senior and a junior Consultant Psychiatrist of Government Mental Health Centre was constituted. They examined the accused and submitted a report before the Trial Court. On the basis of the above report, the Senior Consultant Psychiatrist was examined before the Trial Court. Since the above Medical Officer stated before the Trial Court that there is improvement in the mental ailment of the accused due to medications, and that he is fit to stand trial, the Trial Court listed the matter for framing charges to 15/1/2021. Aggrieved by the above move, the petitioner herein preferred W.P.(C) No.1466/2021 before this Court for a direction to constitute a Medical Board under Sec. 329(1A) Cr.P.C. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the observation that it was for the Trial Court to take a decision in the matter based on the medical reports, and after conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under Sec. 329(2) Cr.P.C. It was accordingly directed that, for facilitating such enquiry, the trial in S.C No.256/2019 shall be deferred by a period of six weeks and that the Trial Court shall consider the necessity of institutionalised treatment of the accused. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the accused before the Sessions Court, which sent him for institutionalised treatment. Since the Medical Officer concerned reported that the accused was not fit to stand trial, the treatment continued. However, on 16/10/2021, the Trial Court passed an order to release the accused from the Mental Health Centre, since a report was received stating that the accused is fit to stand trial. Accordingly, the Trial Court again resolved to proceed with the framing of charges against the accused. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.P(Crl) No.477/2021 before this Court alleging violation of the provisions contained in Ss. 328 and 329(2) of Cr.P.C. As per the judgment dtd. 8/11/2023, this Court directed the Sessions Court, Thrissur, to conduct an enquiry, as contemplated under Sec. 329 Cr.P.C. It was further directed that the framing of charges in S.C No.256/2019 shall be deferred till the enquiry is completed. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge directed the Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur, to have an observation and certification of the mental status of the accused. The Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur, constituted a team consisting of one Junior Consultant Psychiatrist and one Clinical Psychologist, and subjected the accused to observation for a period of 13 days. Thereafter, a report dtd. 13/8/2024 was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge stating that the accused is fit to stand trial, but he needs to continue medications and regular follow-up under a Psychiatrist for long term to maintain the current improved status. On receipt of the above report, the learned Sessions Judge examined the Junior Consultant Psychiatrist, who was one of the signatories to the above report. She deposed before the Trial Court in tune with the observations and recommendations in the report dtd. 13/8/2024. It is thereafter that the learned Sessions Judge took the impugned decision to proceed with the hearing on charge under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C and posted the case to 9/9/2024.