NAME: JASH DHAROD

COURSE: B.A LL.B (HONS.)

SEM: VI
SUBJECT: C.R.P.C
EXTRA ASSIGNMENT-4
1. TRIAL OF UNSOUND PERSON

Criminal proceedings related to unsound mind

The following are the criminal procedures related to a lunatic or an individual of unsound mind under
CrPC –

Section 328– procedure in case of the accused being a

lunatic
According to Section 328 of the Act, if the magistrate believes that the person being investigated
is unable to defend himself or is mentally ill, the magistrate must guarantee that the subject is
evaluated by a medical professional during the investigation.

If the defendant is unable to defend himself, the magistrate will hear the prosecution and
examine the records.

The magistrate shall postpone the proceeding for a limited term until the person’s unsoundness is
remedied, based on medical proof.

In the case of Mohan Lal @ Ranjan Mohan Bhatnagar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) (2011), it was
contended that the evidence on record shows that the appellant was examined by various doctors
prior to the start of the trial by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in proceedings under Section
328 CrPC and was found to be a man of unsound mind, and the learned M.M. also passed an
order in this regard and the trial began only after he was declared mentally fit.

Section 329– procedure where a person of unsound mind

is tried before the court
According to Section 329 of the Act, if the magistrate believes the person being tried is of sound
mind and incapable of self-defence, the magistrate ensures this by having the subject evaluated
by a medical professional. If the defendant is unable to defend himself, the magistrate will hear
the prosecution and examine the records. The magistrate shall record such a determination and
postpone the hearing based on medical evidence.

The fact of insanity throughout the trial will be considered part of the proceedings.

In the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2011), it was stated that since Section 329 of
CrPC relates to the trial of a person of unsound mind and that the application has been filed
during the trial Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable.

Section 330- release of a person of unsound mind

pending investigation or trial
According to Section 330 of the Act, If the person is found unsound or incapable of making his
defence during the inquiry and trial (Sections 328 and 329), regardless of whether the offence is
bailable or not, the Court may release him. In other words, if the offence is non bailable, the
magistrate must grant bail as well. If, on the other hand, bail cannot be granted, the accused must
be kept in a location where he can receive treatment.

In the case of Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. (2018), the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that
a doctor at the mental hospital in Varanasi had opined that he was an accused of unsound mind,
and ordered that the accused be sent under a detention warrant to the mental hospital in Varanasi,
where the accused-applicant was being treated, as noted in his decision. He opined that there was
no good reason to release the applicant on bail, and he denied the applicant’s bail application
under Section 330 of the CrPC.

Section 331- resumption of inquiry or trial

According to Section 331 of the Act, when the inquiry and trial are postponed or suspended, the
magistrate shall summon the person after he or she regains mental soundness or ceases to be
insane and resume the inquiry and trial.

In the case of Subhash Bhardwaj v. State (2016), the Court concluded that the trial will be
scheduled after the trial court receives the IHBAS report and completes its investigation pursuant
to Section 331 CrPC.
Section 332- procedure of accused appearing before the
magistrate or the court
According to Section 332 of the Act, If the accused appears before the magistrate and the court
believes he is capable of presenting his defence, the investigation and trial will continue.

If the person is still unable to recover from his condition, the provisions of Section 330 will apply
once more.

In the case of Geeg Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2008), the Court said that the trial will continue as
the accused is capable of presenting his defence.

Section 334- judgement of acquittal of the accused on

the ground of unsoundness of mind
According to Section 334 of the Act, if a person is acquitted on the grounds of insanity and is
unable to identify the nature of the act, the findings must state whether the act was committed by
the accused or not.

In the case of Abdul Latif v. The State of Assam (1981), the Court came to the conclusion that the
accused was incompetent to know the nature of the act or that he was doing something that was
either illegal or against the law at the critical moment. As a result, they overturned the
convictions and punishments, accepted the plea of insanity, granted the appeal, and found the
appellant not guilty.

Section 335- person acquitted on such ground to be

detained in safe custody
According to Section 335 (1) of the Act, if a person is acquitted by a magistrate on the grounds
of insanity, he or she should be detained in safe custody or should be delivered to a family
member or friend.

When it comes to delivering an accused person to a relative or friend, the court can only do so if
the relative or friend makes an application to the magistrate and the friend or relative assures the
court of security.
Responsibilities of a relative or friend
 He must take proper care of that individual.
 When necessary, the relative or friend should present that person for inspection as
directed by the state government.
In the case of Niman Sha v. State of M.P. (1995), the Court decided, based on the heinous crime
the accused had committed and his mental state, as well as the risks to society, that the accused
be imprisoned at the mentioned Institute of Mental Health in Gwalior until he regains normalcy
after receiving medical treatment.

Section 336- the power of state government to empower

officer in charge to discharge
According to Section 336 of the Act, the State Government may delegate all or all of the
functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons under Section 337 or Section 338 to the official in
charge of the jail in which a person is imprisoned under the provisions of section 330 or section
335.

In the case of Motiram Maroti Dhule v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the Court ordered that a
copy of the judgment shall also be sent to the Inspector General of Prisons who is empowered in
terms of Section 336 to perform and discharge the functions under Sections 337 and 338 of
Criminal Procedure Code for further necessary action in the matter.

Section 337- procedure where the lunatic prisoner is

reported capable of making his defence
According to Section 337 of the Act, the magistrate must proceed with Section 332 if it is
determined that the lunatic is now capable of defending himself.

In the case of Emperor v. Motilal Hiralal (1921), the Court continued the trial as the accused is
capable of defending himself.

Section 338- procedure where a lunatic detained is

declared fit to be released
According to Section 338 of the Act, if a person is detained under Section 330 on the grounds of
insanity and the authorised person or inspector general certifies that the person is fit to be
released, detained by the authorities, transferred to a public mental institution then there should
be no damage in doing so and the government may then release the individual.

If a person is committed to a public mental institution, a commission must be formed to conduct

an official investigation into their mental health and issue a report, which must be sent to the
state government.

In the case of Motiram Maroti Dhule v. State of Maharashtra (2002), the Court has directed that
the petitioner be kept in safe custody for the present in Amravati Jail till the State Government
takes action in the matter. The State Government may decide where the appellant is to be kept
pending action under Sections 338 or 339 of Criminal Procedure Code as the case may require.

Section 339- delivery of lunatic to the care of relative or

friend
According to Section 339 of the Act, if a person’s relative or friend wishes for the person to be
released to him, the relative or friend must apply to the State Government for such a release.

The State Government will only accept such an application or grant the request if the person
delivers :-

 Properly cared for without causing harm to himself or others

 Produced for inspection when necessary
 Produced before a magistrate when necessary
When the accused is able to defend himself, the accused’s relative or friend is summoned, and a
certificate of inspection is kept as evidence.

2. Steps to follow the defence evidence

Defence evidence: An opportunity is given to the accused in a case where

he is not being acquitted to produce so as to defend his case. The defense
can produce both oral and documentary evidence. In India, since the burden
of proof is on the prosecution the defense, in general, is not required to give
any defense evidence.
Steps to follow the defence evidence
As per Section 233 when the accused is not convicted under Section 232 he shall be called upon
to produce evidence he may have in his support. If the accused desires he can give evidence in
his defence in a written form and the Judge shall file it with the record. The steps to be followed
for obtaining the evidence of the defence are discussed below.

Court witnesses, if any

As per Section 311, the Court can at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings, summon
and examine any person as a court witness if his evidence appears to the court that it is essential
for the just decision of the case.

Arguments
Under Section 234, the prosecution shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader shall be
entitled to reply, and if any point of law is raised by the accused or his pleader, the prosecution
may with due permission of the Judge make his submission with regard to point of law. It is to be
noted that Section 314 also talks about the arguments of the parties. However, Section 234
provides that after the evidence for the defence is concluded it is for the prosecution to sum up
the case, and then the defence will be entitled to reply. Section 234 is a special one regarding
argument whereas Section 314 is a general provision and therefore Section 234 would prevail
over Section 314. The reason being it is a well-settled law that when there is any inconsistency
between a general and a special law, the special one would prevail.

Judgment and connected matters

After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and defence the Court will give judgement in a
case. It is the stage where the accused is either acquitted or convicted.

Judgment
As per Section 235, a Judge will pronounce a judgement of acquittal or conviction after hearing
the arguments of both the parties i.e, the prosecution and defence and on point of law (if any).
However, considering the character of the offender, the circumstances of the case and the nature
of the offence, the Judge may as per Section 360 decide to release the offender on probation of
good conduct. If the accused is acquitted, the acquittal will be done according to the procedure
laid down under Section 232 and if he is convicted he shall be dealt according to Section 235.
In Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana it was held that, in case of non-compliance with this
provision, the case may be remanded to the Sessions Judge for retrial on the question of sentence
only. It is not necessary for the Judge to hold a new trial altogether it will be restricted to the
question of sentence only.

3. Procedure to follow the order of conviction

Procedure to follow the order of conviction

After conviction, the Judge will hear the accused and then pass a sentence under Section 235. The
Judge while passing a sentence shall try to gather all information that influences or relates to the
sentence of the accused. The provisions of Section 235(2) are mandatory and should be complied
with strictly as held by the Court. The purpose of Section 235 is to offer a chance to the accused to
adduce evidence of any mitigating circumstances in his favour. The accused should be explicitly
asked with respect to what he needs to state about his sentence and whether he wants to give any
proof on his side in order to mitigate his sentence.

On this point, the Apex Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab held that the Judge should first pass a
sentence of conviction or acquittal. If the accused is convicted he shall be heard on the question of
sentence and only then the Court shall proceed to pass a sentence against him.

In Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab, it was ruled by the Court that this Section provides for a
bifurcated trial and specifically gives to the accused person a right of pre-sentence hearing which
may not be strictly relevant to or connected with the particular crime under inquiry but may have a
bearing on the choice of the sentence.

Procedure in case of previous conviction

Section 236 talks about previous convictions. It says that if an accused is charged with a convicted
previously under Section 211(7) and he does not admit that he has been previously convicted with
the alleged charge. The Judge after convicting the accused under Section 229 or Section 235 may call
for evidence of the accused of such previous conviction and shall record findings, in case the accused
is liable to enhanced punishment or punishment of a different kind. The proviso to this Section
mentions that such charge shall not be read out by the Judge, nor shall the accused be asked to plead
nor shall the prosecution refer to such previous conviction.

Section 236 provides for a special procedure for determining liability to enhanced punishment as a
consequence of previous conviction. Also, prohibiting the proof of previous conviction to be given
until and unless the accused is convicted, is to prevent the accused from being prejudiced at the trial.
4. Procedures in cases of defamation of high dignitaries and public servants

Under Section 199(2) the Court of Session may take cognizance of an offence, without
the case being committed to it when any offence of defamation is committed against a
person who is at that time, President of India, the Vice-President of India, Governor of a
State, or any Public servant in the Union or State when a complaint is made to it by the
PublicProsecutor in writing.
Section 237 requires the Court of Sessions to try the case in accordance with the
procedure for trial of warrant-cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a
Magistrate Court when it takes cognizance of an offence under Section 199 (2).
The proviso to Section 237(1) says that a person shall be examined as a prosecution
witness against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the Court of
Session otherwise directs. The Court has to record the reasons for it.
Each trial under Section 237 is to be conducted in camera if the Court thinks or if either
of the party so desires. If the Court discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and the
Court thinks that there is no reasonable cause of making an accusation against the
accused or any of them. A show-cause notice for grant of compensation may be issued to
those allegedly defamed.
The Court awards compensation to the accused or any of them up to one thousand rupees
after considering the show cause and recording reasons for the same. The compensation
awarded shall be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by the magistrate. A person who
has been made liable to pay compensation shall not be exempted from any civil or
criminal liability. If any sum has already been paid to the accused that sum shall be taken
into consideration while paying compensation in any subsequent proceeding relating to
the same matter.
The award of compensation does not apply to President, Vice-President, Governor of the
State or Administrator of Union territory.
A person can also appeal to the High Court against the order of the Court under this
Section.

5. Procedure in case of previous conviction