Mounesh vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 200117/2017 decided on 21 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/355911/1/CRLA200117-17-21-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 22. After thorough perusal of the records, certain doubts arose in the mind of this Court, more particularly, in the light of the fact that the last session of treatment undergone by the under trial/accused, was immediately prior to the commencement of the trial. On perusal of the ordersheet, it reflected that the trial commenced shortly after the accused returned from treatment at National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru. As a doubt arose with regard to the fact as to whether the trial had been fairly conducted, we requested the presence of the counsel who had been appointed by the District Legal Services Authority to represent the accused before the trial.
30. Pursuant to our interaction with the Prison Officials and their Doctor and upon the direction of this Court as afore-extracted, the medical opinion in the case of the accused was placed before the Court along with certain enclosures pertaining to the treatment of the accused at NIMHANS during the period of trial.
31. On interaction of the doctor, it was made known to the Court that patients suffering from a chronic depression if not maintained on medication on a daily basis, there is all likelihood of a relapse of the medical condition leading to or bordering on insanity.
32. At this juncture, we are constrained to note the failing on the part of the trial Court. It appears that the trial Court has blindly proceeded on the information dated 25.03.2015 without even endeavouring or even attempting to satisfy itself as to whether the accused was `legally fit’ to stand trial. It was incumbent upon the trial Court to satisfy itself that the accused was capable of comprehending the various stages of trial, more particularly, the evidence that was put against him and as to whether he had understood the same and further as to whether he has accordingly instructed his counsel to defend his rights. The trial Court has miserably failed in complying with this requirement. It is sad to note that the trial Court has acted in a mechanical manner without even being alive to the consequence that would follow in the absence of an effective defence. The right to defence is not an illusory right and the duty cast on the Court to ensure fair trial is not optional but mandatory. The conduct of the trial, to state the least, shocks our judicial conscious. Even a simple attempt by the trial Court to cross check with the defence counsel would have been suffice to alert the Court to the circumstances surrounding the trial.
33. …The various stages of a trial are nothing but a pursuit in the search of the truth. In this direction, we are of the firm opinion that the trial Court has miserably failed. The trial Court being well aware of the mental condition of the accused immediately prior to the commencement of the trial, it was incumbent on the trial Court to ascertain as to whether the accused was capable or incapable of making his defence.
49. In terms of the law extracted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it becomes unmistakably clear that the accused who stands trial must have a sound and mental condition capable of comprehending the material being put against him, failing which the trial against an accused who is suffering from mental infirmity becomes vitiated. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the opinion of the medical experts, with regard to the mental conditions of the accused, which are extracted herein above, the trial against the accused will have to be held to be vitiated on the ground of mental instability of the accused during trial and a retrial is to be ordered.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 