AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (herein after called brevity “Sessions Court”), in Crl.M.P.No.38 of 2026 in S.C.No.644 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to refer him to any Government Hospital for examination and to ascertain his mental illness on such terms and conditions was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the memorandum of criminal petition, mentioned that respondent No. 2 was made pro forma respondent and not necessary party to this case.
Heard Mr.L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.644 of 2025 and is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 64(1) and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 5(1) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner has been suffering from serious mental illness even prior to the commission of the offences. The petitioner has been taking treatment at the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda, Hyderabad, since 24.08.2020, and the petitioner was suffering from depression, anxiety and sleeplessness, etc. The petitioner was using the medicines prescribed by the Hospital, namely, Sodium Valproate, Escitalopram and Lorazepam. The petitioner filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.38 of 2026 to refer him to any Government Hospital for medical examination to ascertain his mental illness. In the said application, the petitioner has made specific averments that ascertaining his mental condition is very much required for adjudication of the case. The learned Sessions Court, without properly considering the averments made in support of the application, dismissed the same only on the ground that the petitioner had not produced substantial material to satisfy the requirements under Section 368 of the BNSS.
He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court, while coming to the conclusion that there was no medical opinion certifying that the petitioner was presently incapable of defending himself or understanding the proceedings before the Court, on the other hand, dismissed the application. As on the date of the application, no doctor had certified that the petitioner was presently incapable of defending himself, and to ascertain the mental condition of the petitioner, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Court. On such circumstances, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have dismiss the petition and if the application is allowed no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan v. State of Punjab1.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner, in support of his application, has not produced any iota of evidence to show that he was suffering from mental illness prior to the commission of the offences or after the commission of the offences. In the absence of any such evidence or material, the petitioner is not entitled to seek to refer himself to a Government Hospital for examination and to ascertain his mental illness. The petitioner filed the present application only with an intention to drag on the proceedings before Sessions Court one way or other. The learned Sessions Court rightly dismissed the application by assigning cogent reasons, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court. Hence, the present Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.644 of 2025 and is facing prosecution for the offences under Section 64(1) and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner filed an application vide Crl.M.P. No.38 of 2026 on 23.02.2026, seeking to refer him to any Government Hospital for examination and to ascertain his mental illness. In the said application, the petitioner specifically pleaded in paragraph 5 of the petition that he was suffering from psychiatric illness and had visited the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda, Hyderabad, on 20.04.2020, and that even prior to the commission of the alleged offence on 31.03.2025, he was suffering from depression, anxiety and sleeplessness. The medicines were prescribed to him, and he was under medication for some time. He also submitted that he was suffering from severe mood swings and, after being released on bail, he was again taken to the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda, where he was prescribed medicines. The petitioner visited the said hospital on 12.08.2025, 19.09.2025, 12.11.2025, 19.12.2025 and 17.02.2026. On the said dates, the Hospital prescribed him Sodium Valproate 500 mg, Escitalopram 10 mg and Lorazepam 2 mg, and the petitioner was using the said medicines. He was also pleaded that a book was maintained by the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda, Hyderabad, wherein the prescriptions and details of the treatment were recorded. Along with the said application, the petitioner filed the prescriptions and the book issued by the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda. The learned Sessions Court, while duly taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner along with the application, dismissed the application on the ground that no substantial material had been placed before the Court.
It is relevant to mention the learned Sessions Court in para 13 of impugned order held that there was no medical opinion certifying that the petitioner was presently incapable of defending himself or understanding the proceedings before the Court, though the petitioner had filed the application seeking a direction to refer him to the Government Hospital for examination to ascertain his mental illness/condition. Once the learned Sessions Court came to the conclusion that there was no medical opinion certifying that the petitioner was presently incapable of defending himself or understanding the proceedings before the Court, the learned Sessions Court ought to have referred the petitioner to the Government Hospital for examination to ascertain his mental condition.
In Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan's case (supra), at paragraph 19, held as under:
"The facts, as noticed above, including the medical opinion obtained in respect of the petitioner from time to time, would indicate that both the situations envisaged under Sections 329 and 333 Cr.P.C. would arise in the present case. The petitioner is opined to be suffering from chronic psychotic illness/schizophrenia of undifferentiated type. He continues to suffer this disease for the last eight years. The latest report obtained from expert in this regard is that the petitioner is still suffering from chronic psychotic illness and is not showing any appreciable response to the medication. When examined by a doctor now in the year 2008, he was found to be very dirty, filthy and disheveled state. He did not produced any speech spontaneously. His answers to the questions were mostly irrelevant. It is more than 'appears' situation and rather it is clear that the petitioner is incapable of making his defence, if he is put to trial. Thus, the procedure prescribed under Section 329 Cr.P.C would need to be followed. The application was made on behalf of the petitioner, which appears to have been neglected/ignored or it failed to receive proper consideration for reasons best known to the Court. How could the Court record that application filed by the father of the petitioner under Section 329 Cr.P.C stands concluded in view of the circumstances and statement of Roshan Lal. It was incumbent on the Court to decide the application in terms of the law, provisions being mandatory and responsibility in this regard being of the Court. As already noticed, the provisions of these Sections are mandatory and are ought to be strictly complied with as otherwise the proceedings would get vitiated. Since this plea was raised before the Court, it was required to try this fact of unsoundness of mind at the first instance. The Court instead ordered commencement of the trial without recording medical evidence or satisfying itself. Thus, continuing with the case would lead to trial being vitiated. This is so held in Gurjit Singh's case (supra). How and why the Court chose to ignore the opinion of a doctor, who clearly stated that the petitioner is suffering from chronic psychotic disorder and proceeded with the trial can really not be made out. Section 329 Cr.P.C., as already noticed, uses the word 'appears' which is of a lesser degree of probability than proof. The Court must have statement of medical officer and such officer must be examined as a mere written certificate of the medical officer that an accused of unsound mind is not sufficient evidence of insanity. Such officer must be called and examined as a witness. Rather, the Court chose to prefer its personal observations recorded while it was busy attending to other cases as well. It would really sound strange. It is palpably illegal. Such a decision can not be based merely on information received out of Court from Civil Surgeon or on answer to question put to the accused. It is so held in Mehan Singh Vs. State, AIR 1954 Patna 129. It has to be based on evidence. Thus, the Court was bound to examined the doctor as witness who had examined the petitioner and if it was still to view that the petitioner was not of unsound mind on the basis of some question and answer put to the petitioner, then these were to be placed on record. This course adopted by the Court to rely upon its own observations and failing to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 329 Cr.P.C by ignoring the opinion of an expert, which is required to be taken into consideration in terms of the statutory provisions, certainly would not be legally sound mode to dispose of the plea raised before the Court. This mode adopted by the Court, as such, can not be accepted being opposed to the statutory provisions."
In the said case, though the Head of the Department of Psychiatry had given a report, the learned trial Court, ignoring the said report and solely relying upon the procedure prescribed under Section 329 of the Cr.P.C., dismissed the application filed by the petitioner therein seeking to send him for medical examination. The learned trial Court, ignoring the reports submitted by the respective departments, came to the conclusion that the mental condition of the petitioner/accused therein was fit and proceeded with the trial. Aggrieved by the said order, the father of the petitioner therein had approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein the High Court while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and directed the trial Court to decide the application in terms of the statutory provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the learned trial Court had ignored the expert opinion given by the Doctor. Whether the petitioner is suffering from a mental illness or whether his mental condition is fit or not has to be certified by medical experts.
In the case on hand, the nature of the application filed by the petitioner is to seek a direction to refer him for examination and to ascertain his mental illness. Even according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter before the learned Sessions Court is not ripe for trial. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Court ought to have referred the petitioner to the Government Hospital for examination to ascertain his mental illness.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Crl.M.P. No. 38 of 2026 in S.C. No.644 of 2025 is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, set aside. The learned Sessions Court is directed to refer the petitioner to any Government Hospital for examination and assessment of his medical condition, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.2008 Supreme (P & H 2029