Case at a Glance
A man accused of killing three family members with a sword in December 2014 was sentenced to death twice by the Sessions Court, once in 2021 and again in 2026 after the High Court had set aside the first trial. Hearing the death reference and his appeal, a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court found that the trial court again failed to follow Section 329 CrPC, which governs trials of accused who may be of unsound mind. Relying on medical records of mental illness from the day after the incident, the Court gave him the benefit of Section 84 IPC and acquitted him. Because he still suffers from schizophrenia, it ordered his detention for treatment at the State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, under Section 335 CrPC.
The prosecution case was that on 13 December 2014 the appellant killed his brother, his mother and his sister-in-law with a sword. He was charged under Sections 302, 316 and 201 IPC. On 21 August 2021 the Sessions Court convicted him and sentenced him to death. On 10 May 2022, in the first appeal and reference, the High Court held the trial vitiated for non-compliance with Section 329 CrPC and Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, set aside the conviction and remanded the case.
After remand, medical reports diagnosed Psychosis NOS and later schizophrenia; an AIIMS Rishikesh report of 7 June 2024 described schizophrenia “currently in partial remission.” The trial nevertheless resumed, charges were framed on 3 April 2023, and the appellant did not answer questions put to him under Section 313 CrPC. On 21/24 February 2026 the Sessions Court again convicted him and imposed the death sentence, which came to the High Court as Criminal Reference No. 01 of 2026 along with his appeal.
The Key Question Before the Court
Where the record shows an accused was mentally ill from the time of the incident and the trial court did not follow Section 329 CrPC, should the conviction and death sentence stand, should the case be remanded again, or is the accused entitled to acquittal under Section 84 IPC?
Fitness for Trial and Insanity at the Time of the Act
The Bench found that Section 329 CrPC had not been followed at any stage, either at the original trial or after remand. Mental illness was recorded as early as 14 December 2014, the day after the incident, yet after the 2022 remand the trial court proceeded on a report that itself diagnosed Psychosis NOS and continued despite the later AIIMS diagnosis. The Court called this “a gross non-compliance” with Section 329. It held that evidence recorded while the appellant could not follow the proceedings conflicted with Section 273 CrPC, which requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused, and treated the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses as resting on vitiated evidence.
Instead of remanding a second time, noting that the appellant had been in custody for over 11 years, the Court examined the Section 84 IPC plea. Relying on the medical record from 2014, the repeated diagnoses and Prakash Nayi alias Sen v. State of Goa, (2023) 01 SC CK 0075 (2023) 5 SCC 673, it concluded that at the time of the act the appellant, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was “incapable of knowing the nature of the act.” It also recorded that “the prosecution, in fact, has failed to prove the case against the appellant” beyond reasonable doubt. The amicus curiae had relied on Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 04 SC CK 0140 (2019) 7 SCC 1. Since an AIIMS medical board on 25 August 2026 found that he still had schizophrenia, the Court held it “dangerous to let him at liberty” and invoked Section 335 CrPC.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 329 CrPC was not complied with, either in the original trial or after the 2022 remand; this was a gross non-compliance.
- The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC, and the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 316 and 201 IPC were set aside and he was acquitted.
- Under Section 335 CrPC he is to be detained in safe custody at the State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, Dehradun, for treatment until cured, after which the State is to arrange accommodation under the Uttarakhand Mental Healthcare Rules, 2023.
- The death reference was answered accordingly, and a copy was directed to be sent to the trial court and to the Principal Secretary (Home).
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows how strictly appellate courts read the procedure for trying an accused who may be of unsound mind, especially in death penalty cases.
- It confirms that later medical findings of mental illness can support a Section 84 IPC defence about the accused’s state at the time of the act.
- Acquittal under Section 84 does not mean release: the Court used Section 335 CrPC to keep a still-ill person in safe custody for treatment.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families and the Public
- An acquittal on grounds of unsound mind is not a finding that the person is safe; here the Court ordered detention in a mental health institute.
- Early medical records, such as treatment notes from the days after an incident, can be decisive.
For Counsel
- Raise fitness for trial under Section 329 CrPC at the outset and insist on a proper inquiry and medical opinion before evidence is recorded.
- Build a Section 84 IPC defence on contemporaneous medical records; Prakash Nayi alias Sen v. State of Goa supports reliance on later diagnoses.
- Where the accused is acquitted on this ground, address the court on Section 335 CrPC custody and treatment arrangements.
Key Takeaways
- Two death sentences were set aside because the trial ignored the accused’s mental condition.
- Section 329 CrPC must be followed before an accused who may be of unsound mind is tried.
- The benefit of Section 84 IPC was granted on medical evidence dating back to 2014.
- The acquitted appellant will be held at the State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, until cured.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 84 IPC?
It provides that nothing is an offence if, at the time of doing it, the person by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The High Court found this applied here.
What does Section 329 CrPC require?
It sets the procedure when an accused before a Sessions Court appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence: the court must try that fact first and act on it before continuing the trial. The High Court found the trial court did not follow it.
Will the accused be released after acquittal?
No. Because he still suffers from schizophrenia, the Court ordered under Section 335 CrPC that he be detained in safe custody at the State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, for treatment until cured.
Conclusion
The case went through two full trials and two death sentences before the High Court held that the accused’s mental illness had been in the record all along. The Bench neither ordered a second remand nor released him: it acquitted him under Section 84 IPC and kept him in custody for treatment.
Practical takeaway: When there is any sign that an accused is mentally ill, the Section 329 CrPC inquiry is a basic safeguard that must be completed; skipping it can vitiate the whole trial.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com