Gujarat HC quashes life term in 2011 murder case over failure to probe accused's mental health

Gujarat High Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence awarded by Ahmedabad Sessions Court to a man accused of murdering his father-in-law in 2011, citing serious procedural lapses in handling evidence of the accused's mental illness.

The high court observed that Section 329 CrPC mandates the court to try the fact of unsoundness of mind first—considering medical and other evidence—and postpone proceedings if satisfied of incapacity. The high court held the trial court's omission rendered the entire trial vitiated.

A single-judge bench said that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section requires the court to first inquire into and determine whether an accused person is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence before proceeding with the trial.

The court remitted the case back to the trial court for a fresh trial, starting from the stage of framing charges. It directed the accused, who had been incarcerated for over 11 years, to be released on bail pending the retrial, with the condition that he cannot leave India without prior permission from the trial court.

Evidence of the accused's mental health issues emerged early in the proceedings. Prior to the FIR and after the charge-sheet was filed, records showed he was undergoing treatment for mental illness. In 2010, he was registered at the Mental Hospital in Ahmedabad and examined by Dr Ajay Chauhan. A medical certificate dated April 8, 2010, described him as uncooperative, with a dysphoric mood and negative thoughts, the high court noted.

The advocate appearing for accused submitted that, before the evidence was recorded in trial, the accused's brother filed an application under Section 329 CrPC that his brother was suffering from mental illness and prior to the incident of murder. On December 8, 2011, the trial court directed jail authorities to refer the accused to the Mental Hospital for examination and treatment, and to submit a progress report. However, the high court noted that the trial court failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry into his mental capacity before proceeding.

On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused- appellant has no mental illness, nor he is suffering from psychiatric problem and merely claiming mental illness would exempt him from criminal liability. The appellant-accused was a government employee and considering his behaviour throughout the trial, suggested that he was a normal man. Thus no interference is required in trial court's judgment.

The incident dates back to February 18, 2011, when the accused allegedly stabbed his father-in-law, Meghram, multiple times while the latter was cultivating his farm. According to the prosecution, the deceased had been harassing the accused over his irregular attendance at work, leading to a grudge that culminated in the fatal attack.