Criminal Proceedings Related to Unsound Mind

Introduction:

The condition where an individual is unable of thinking or acting like a normal human being is known as unsoundness or instability of mind, lunacy or insanity. The nearest definition for “unsound minds” is given under Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 which states: any person will be considered of having a sound mind if …he can understand the act, its consequences and is competent to make a rational decision.[1]. Any person who is not capable of understanding a situation, taking rational decisions or its consequences is deemed to be of unsound mind.

Indian law accommodates unsoundness of minds under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Chapter XXV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Where the former is a defence for insanity and the latter is the provisions relating to accused of unsound minds. The criminal procedure related to a lunatic person under Cr.P.C chapter 25 is as follows[2]:

Section 328 – Procedure in Case of the Accused Being Lunatic

When the Magistrate during inquiry has a reason to think that the accused is of unsound mind and cannot make a defence for himself, then he shall conduct an inquiry into such fact such unsoundness of mind and shall get examined by either any civil surgeon / medical practitioners as directed by the State authority. Such a medical officer shall be a witness and will be examined by the Magistrate.

Where the medical practitioner confirms that the accused is of unsound mind, the magistrate must refer his case to a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist for a proper examination, attention and treatment. Depending upon the prognosis of the same, the psychiatrist / clinical psychologist shall inform the Magistrate whether the accused suffers from mental retardation or an unsound mind. 

• However, the accused if not satisfied with the report submitted to the Magistrate by the psychiatrist / clinical psychologist, he can appeal against this against the same with a medical board, consisting of:
  • The head of the psychiatry department of the nearest government hospital.
  • And a faculty member of psychiatry from a nearest medical college
• During the time such an inquiry or medical examination is pending, the Magistrate shall deal with the accused according to the procedure laid down in Section 330 of Cr.P.C.
• If it is found that the accused is unable to defend himself, the magistrate shall decide whether there subsists a prima facie case against the accused by examining the evidence provided by the petitioner and hear the arguments of the defendant’s advocate. However, he cannot question the accused who is of unsound mind. The accused may be discharged and dealt in the manner provided under Section 330. If there exists no prima facie case. However, if there exists prima facie evidence against the suspect, the Magistrate shall postpone the proceedings until such date as suggested by the psychiatrist for the defendant’s treatment and shall deal with him in accordance of section 330.
• The Magistrate shall, if informed that the defendant suffers from mental retardation further examine the quantum of the mental retardation. If it appears that the defendant cannot defend himself, the Magistrate shall close the inquiry and deal with the defendant in the manner dictated by Section 330.

In Jaishankar v. State of H.P 1972 AIR 2267, 1973 SCR (2) 1.[3], it was ruled that Section 328 is a mandatory section. It is an obligation upon the Magistrate to initiate an inquiry determining whether the defendant suffers from the unsoundness of mind along with the assistance of medical officials. Once the Magistrate is informed about the accused being of unsound mind, he further shall find out whether he can defend himself and follow the rest of the procedure accordingly. 

In V. Shivaswamy v. State AIR 1971 SC 1638[4], it was ruled that the Magistrate shall conduct an inquiry only if the suspect seems to be insane. If the accused seem mentally fit, there is no necessity to conduct an inquiry.    

Section 329 – Procedure Where a Person of Unsound Mind is Tried Before the Court.

The procedure under this provision is similar to what Section 328 dictates. However, the only difference is that Section 328 applies where a Magistrate holding inquiry of an accused whereas Section 329 is applicable during the trial of a person before a Magistrate or a Court of Sessions.

Section 330 – Release of a Person of Unsound Mind Pending Investigation or Trial.

Section 328 and 329 mentions that someone of unsound mind who is unable of defending himself is to be treated according to this section. Section 330 states the Court can grant bail to the accused.

However, depending upon the case, or on the grounds of insufficient security, the Magistrate or Court may refuse bail to the accused. In this case, it may order the accused to be sent to such a place where he will receive the required psychiatric treatment. Provided that no instruction of detention to asylum will be made except under the provisions of Mental Health Act, 1987.

The Magistrate or the Court, while granting a bail shall consider the nature and consequences of the act and the degree of unsoundness/ retardation. However:

1. If the Magistrate or the Court decides to grant bail to the accused, based on the suggestion of the medical board, such a release can only be granted if adequate security that the accused shall not harm himself or others is provided.
2. If the Magistrate or Court, opines that he cannot be discharged, then he is to be admitted to a psychiatric facility where he will receive adequate care and training.

In State of Karnataka v. Jatli 1992 CrLj 3835[5], the defendant assailed his wife and children and set his house ablaze. The Judge may decide over the matter only by examining the evidence provided by the medical official. If the case lacks such medical evidence the Judge cannot take any decision.

Section 331- Resumption of Inquiry or Trial.

The inquiry or trial of a person, postponed due to Section 328 or 329, may be resumed by the Magistrate or Court at any moment as soon as the accused ceases to be of unsound mind and is required to appear before the Court.

Section 332- Procedure for Accused Appearing before Magistrate or Court.

When the accused ceases to be of unsound mind and is presented before the Court again to be considered of sound mind, and there is sufficient evidence that the Magistrate or the Court is satisfied by the evidence provided and they are convinced that the act committed by the accused was due to the lunacy. In this case, the Magistrate or Court may proceed further with the inquiry or trial.

However, if the accused shall be dealt according to Section 330 if he is unable to defend himself.

Section 333- When Accused Appears to be of Sound Mind.

Whenever the Magistrate opines that the accused appears to be in sound mind and if satisfactory evidence in support is produced before the court suggesting the act was an offence if committed with a sane mind by the accused, the Magistrate can proceed further with the case or refer it to the Sessions Judge if necessary.

Section 334 – Judgment of Acquittal of the Accused on the Ground of Unsoundness of Mind.

The section states that when the accused due to his unsoundness of mind is incapable to analyse the nature of the offence committed, is acquitted by any court on grounds of insanity, the findings should specifically state whether or not the accused has committed the offence or not.

In Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1986 Cr. Lj 1505(P&H)[6], it was ruled that there must be sufficient medical evidence to prove and plead insanity. If the trial is held without recoding the findings, it may vitiate the trial.

Section 335- Person Acquitted on such Ground to be Detained in Safe Custody

If an accused, has committed an act which otherwise committed with a sane mind will constitute a crime, is discharged by any Court; the accused shall be: 

1. Either kept in such a place or manner as the Magistrate or Court thinks fit for the safety of the accused; or
2. Provide to any friend or relative who makes application for the custody of the accused and provides the court with an assurance that the accused will not be a threat to himself or others.

However, no instruction of detention to asylum will be made except under the provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 

Section 337- Procedure where the Lunatic Prisoner is Reported Capable of Making his Defence.

If the accused appears to be fit and in the capacity of defending himself, then the Court can proceed according to the procedure mentioned under Section 332 of Cr.P.C.

Section 338 – Procedure where Lunatic Detained is Declared Fit to be Released.

If a person under section 330 or 335 is detained, and the Inspector or the visitors verify that the accused seems like he is not a threat either to himself for others and may be released, in such case the state government may instruct his release or transfer into a psychiatric facility or be kept in custody.

Section 339 – Delivery of Lunatic to the Care of Relative or Friend.

When any member of family or friend makes an application for the custody of the accused of the purpose of either Section 330 or 335, in such case the state authorities may after being completely assured that the accused:

1. Will be provided with safety and care of and will be prevented from injuring himself or others.
2. He shall be brought for inspection whenever required by the state government.
3. In case the detention is under Section 330, if required the accused will be presented the Magistrate or court.

The Magistrate or Court shall proceed with the case in a manner directed by Section 332 if the Inspecting officer certifies that the accused can defend himself.

Conclusion

The provisions relating to unsound persons are exhaustive and neatly designed. The approach of the laws is sympathetic and therapeutic towards a person who is not of sane mind. It considers the safety of an unsound person, for example, orders his discharge only to his friend or relative. However, there exist no specific parameters on which the sanity of a mind may be judged or calculated. It is an obligation for the courts to thoroughly examine and check the reason behind the mental unsoundness of a person.

---

References:

[1] Section 12 of Indian Contract act, 1872

[2] CHAPTER XXV, Section 328 to 339 of CRPC – PROVISIONS AS TO ACCUSEDPERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND. (2019, July 18). Retrieved October 04, 2020, from https://www.writinglaw.com/chapter-xxv-328-339-of-crpc-provisions-as-to-accused-persons-of-unsound-mind/

[3] Jaishankar v. State of H.P, 1972 AIR 2267, 1973 SCR (2) 1 (August 30, 1972)

[4] V. Shivaswamy v. State, AIR 1971 SC 1638, 1971 CriLJ 1193 (1971) 3 SCC 220, 1971 III UJ 194 SC (January 18, 1971).

[5] State of Karnataka v. Jatli, 1992 CrLj 3835 (S).

[6] Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 Cr. Lj 1505(P&H).