CrPC Section 329- Procedure In Case Of Person Of Unsound Mind Tried Before Court

Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) lays down the procedure that must be followed in case an accused is found to have been of unsound mind while the trial was going on. The main objective of this provision is the protection of mentally incapacitated persons' rights while also balancing the interests of justice.

Mental health is an important part of a fair trial accorded by the criminal law. Section 329 acts as a safeguard mechanism to prevent such an individual afflicted with a mental disorder or incapacity from being subjected to legal proceedings that they are incapable of fully understanding or to which they cannot contribute meaningfully. This provision safeguards against wrongful conviction or continued legal action against a person who cannot understand or respond to the charges because of mental incapacity. It also requires such persons to receive medical evaluation and treatment to ensure the humane handling of cases involving mental illness.

Legal Provisions Of Section 329 – Procedure In Case Of Person Of Unsound Mind Tried Before Court

1. If at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Session, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court, after considering such medical and other evidence as may be produced before him or it, is satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case.

   1A. If during trial, the Magistrate or Court of Sessions finds the accused to be of unsound mind, he or it shall refer such person to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and treatment, and the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, as the case may be shall report to the Magistrate or Court whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind:

   Provided that if the accused is aggrieved by the information given by the psychiatric or clinical psychologist, as the case may be, to the Magistrate, he may prefer an appeal before the Medical Board which shall consist of -

   1. head of psychiatry unit in the nearest government hospital; and
   2. a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest medical college;

2. If such Magistrate or Court is informed that the person referred to in sub-section (1A) is a person of unsound mind, the Magistrate or Court shall further determine whether unsoundness of mind renders the accused incapable of entering defence and if the accused is found so incapable, the Magistrate or Court shall record a finding to that effect and shall examine the record of evidence produced by the prosecution and after hearing the advocate of the accused but without questioning the accused, if the Magistrate or Court finds that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, he or it shall, instead of postponing the trial, discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under section 330:

   Provided that if the Magistrate or Court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the accused in respect of whom a finding of unsoundness of mind is arrived at, he shall postpone the trial for such period, as in the opinion of the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, is required for the treatment of the accused.

3. If the Magistrate or Court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and he is incapable of entering defence by reason of mental retardation, he or it shall not hold the trial and order the accused to be dealt with in accordance with section 330.

Particulars of Section-329 CrPC

• Chapter: Chapter XXV
• Section in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 368

Essentials Of Section 329 CrPC

1. Unsoundness of Mind and Incapacity to Defend: Sub-Section (1) provides for the following

• If at any stage of the inquiry or trial, it appears that the accused is of unsound mind and thereby incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or the Court of Session is thereupon to try the fact of such unsoundness of mind. That finding is essential before further proceedings can take place.
• The Court accepts medical evidence which involves a report prepared by a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, or any other medical practitioner and any other evidence which may be considered relevant.
• When the Court is convinced that the accused is of unsound mind and is incapable of making their defence, it must record this finding and adjourns further process until the mental condition of the accused has been treated.

2. Refer for Psychiatric or Clinical Psychologist for Care and Treatment: Section 329(1-A) provides for the following:

• Sub-Section 1-A was incorporated through an amendment, strengthening the legal process in the sense that it mandates that the Magistrate or Court refer the accused to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and treatment. The medical professional is then bound to report to the Court whether the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind.
• If the defendant objects to the report of the psychiatrist, then the Medical Board is entitled to be called upon for a review. This Board consists of:
  • The psychiatry unit incharge of the nearest government hospital.
  • The faculty member in psychiatry from the nearest medical college.
• This provision will have the benefit of another level of review and entails safeguards for the accused so that he can challenge erroneous or unfavorable medical findings.

3. Incapacity to Stand Trial and Prima Facie Case: Section 329(2) provides for the following:

• It requires the Court to decide whether the unsoundness of mind renders the accused from putting in defence. Having so decided that the accused is incapable, the Court shall record such finding, and shall thereupon evaluate such evidence as has been adduced by the prosecution without calling upon the accused to question. If the Court believes that no prima facie case has been made against the accused based on the available evidence, it shall discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under Section 330.
• However, if a prima facie case is made against the accused, the Court must postpone the trial for a period which will be sufficient for the accused to undergo the treatment. This postponement is based on the opinion of the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist.

4. Mental Retardation and Incapacity to Stand Trial:

• Sub-Section (3) specifically deals with cases of mental retardation. If the trial Court finds that the accused suffers from mental retardation and is incapable of putting up a defence, it cannot proceed with the trial. Instead, the Court should adopt the provisions of Section 330 which provides for the provision of appropriate care and treatment to the accused, rather than conducting a criminal trial against him.

Consequences Of Non-Compliance To Section 329 CrPC

Non-compliance of Section 329 can attract various consequences such as denial of a fair trial, risk of wrongful conviction, and serious violations of human rights. Therefore, Courts are duty bound to strictly abide by it so that accused, suffering from any type of mental disease, can be treated with dignity and in a proper medical way. Section 329 provides that the criminal justice system should be fair and just for vulnerable individuals, who cannot defend themselves since they are mentally incapacitated. Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 329 may weaken the tests for both fairness and justice as well as the rights of the accused.

Cases Related To Section 329 CrPC

Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan vs. State Of Punjab (2008)

This case is related to the application of Section 329 of the Code. Dimple was charged with multiple offences including the charge for murder. One of the contentions was that whether Dimple's mental state - that is, his psychotic illness - rendered him incapable of making his defence, thereby necessitating the procedure provided by Section 329 of the Code.

An application was moved by Dimple's father under Section 329 Code whereby it was contended that due to the unsoundness of the mind of Dimple, he was not fit to be tried. Medical opinion dating back from 2000 opined that Dimple was suffering from chronic psychotic illness, most possibly schizophrenia. Despite the reports, the Trial Court ordered the trial to proceed. This move of the Trail Court was deemed to be “insensitive” by the High Court.

The High Court criticised the Trial Court for failing to observe statutory requirements of Section 329 of the Code. The High Court emphasised that when a plea is raised under Section 329, the Court is statutorily required to “try the fact of such unsoundness of mind” before proceeding with the trial. The High Court observed that the reliance of the Trial Court on its own observations of the behaviour of Dimple in the Court was “palpably illegal”. The High Court held that there was a dire need for expert medical evidence.

Sheila Kaul Thr. Ms. Deepa Kaul vs. State Thr. Cbi (2013)

This case revolves around the issue of whether the appellant, Sheila Kaul, is capable of facing trial, specially in consideration of her advanced age and potential mental incapacity. Section 329 of the Code provides for the procedure when an accused is found to be of unsound mind during a trial. A framework is provided for a situation wherein the mental state of an accused may interfere with his capacity to participate meaningfully in his defence.

In this case, the appellant contended that considering his age and alleged mental incapacity or, rather alleged dementia, she may not be mentally sound enough to comprehend what is happening and to appropriately defend herself. The medical report showed a mixed picture. Though the report did not state that she suffers from any major psychiatric illness, it still gave a possibility that the patient may be suffering from senile dementia. The report further indicated that she was unable to understand simple questions and has poor memory.

The Trial Court found her capable of understanding and responding to questions, although they may require repetition. In this regard, while acknowledging that the High Court disapproved the plea filed by the appellant, the Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court should have considered taking into account the medical report and the appellant's potential incapacity to defend herself. The Court emphasised that the evaluation of medical evidence is essential in determining whether the appellant could be considered as of unsound mind under Section 329 of the Code.

Snehaswakshayar Samal vs. State Of Orissa (2017)

This case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 329 of the Code with regard to the direction for determining the mental fitness of an accused to face the trial

The petitioner, Snehaswakshayar Samal, was charged with the offence of murder and attempted murder. He moved a petition under Section 329 of the Code arguing that he was of unsound mind and was not, therefore, able to understand the proceedings or present his defence. He requested an examination by a Board of Doctors to determine the state of his mind and that the trial should stand suspended till the report was received.

The High Court held that Section 329 of the Code has two stages. The Magistrate or Court of Sessions must decide whether there is any reasonable grounds for believing the accused to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. If the Court found some reason to believe that the accused may be of unsound mind, then the Court is under an obligation to conduct the trial on the issue of the mental state of the accused.

Reiterating the facts involved in the matter, the High Court has observed that the first stage has been already completed. Based on the initial petition filed by the petitioner, the Trial Court had previously ordered to examine and treat the petitioner at the Mental Health Institute, Cuttack. The said petitioner was consequently shifted to Circle Jail, Choudwar on the request of the Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for further psychiatric treatment.

As noted by the High Court, these acts did reflect that the trial Court had reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was likely to be of unsound mind, thus completing the first stage of Section 329 of the Code. The High Court held that it was, therefore, incumbent on the Trial Court to proceed to the second stage, namely, a trial to ascertain the mental status of the accused.

Key Amendments And Changes

It was the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 which had brought about very vital changes in Section 329. The addition of sub-Section (1-A) and the restructuring of sub-Section (2) reflect a growing recognition of the need for specialised medical input in dealing with cases of unsound mind. The amendment has further strengthened the rights of the accused by allowing for an appeal against the findings of the medical person. Therefore, it provides for a more comprehensive and balanced yet cohesive approach toward justice in such cases.

Significance In The Criminal Justice System

Section 329 of the Code is a very vital component of legal protection because it upholds the underlying tenets of natural justice intact. A person accused of a crime must receive a trial; however, a mentally incapacitated person who is unable to understand or even fails to defend himself must not be tried. This provision not only ensures that trials are fair and just but also promotes the humane treatment of individuals with mental health conditions.

This Section reflects the awareness by modern legal systems of interplay between mental health and criminal justice processes. It avoids the wrongful prosecution or conviction of people suffering from mental illnesses, assuring that those types of persons receive appropriate care and treatment.

Conclusion

Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one of those provisions in a trial of a criminal case where accused persons are found to be of unsound mind. It emphasises for their medical scrutiny and treatment, humane handling by the Courts of proceedings against them, yet at the same time ensuring justice and fairness in matters of law. The provision strikes a balance between the need to protect the rights of the mentally incapacitated with the imperatives of criminal justice. It simultaneously ensures that the mentally unfit individuals are not convicted wrongfully and the society is also not exposed to potentially dangerous individuals who need mental health care.

Click here to explore more about related sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.