Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

61. In Upen Basumatary [supra], unlike in the case in hand, the accused-

appellant therein during his examination under Section 313[1][b], CrPC stated that at the time of occurrence he was a person of unsound mind. The Appellate Court on perusal of the records found that when the accused was examined by the Medical Officer on 11.03.2012 after the incident on 10.03.2012, the Medical Officer advised for psychiatry consultation. During the course of the trial, the Trial Court made an observation that the accused seemed to be a person of unsound mind and ordered for his examination by expert Medical Officers. After receipt of the report the Trial Court came to a finding that the act of the appellant did not attract Section 84 of the IPC. At the appellate stage, the Appellate Court directed for constitution of a Medical Board to examine the aspect of insanity of the accused and as per the medical report submitted by the Medical Board, the accused-appellant was found suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia needing medical treatment. The Appellate Court observed that the records had revealed that right from the inception of the case, there was indication that the accused-appellant appeared to be mentally unsound at the time of the incident. Having considering the mental illness, chronic paranoid schizophrenia, the Appellate Court came to a finding that the Trial Court ought to have resorted to the procedure outlined in Section 329 of the Code and since such procedure was not followed, the trial got vitiated and the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused-appellant.