Accused Once Declared Unfit Can’t Be Pushed to Trial Without Fair Enquiry: Kerala HC

“Any denial of affording such opportunity… would vitiate the proceedings” – In a striking order that blends procedural precision with human rights concerns, the Kerala High Court has told a Sessions Court in Thrissur that it cannot simply take a psychiatrist’s report at face value before resuming a murder trial against a man once declared unfit to stand trial due to paranoid schizophrenia.

Justice G. Girish held that the trial court “must conduct a limited enquiry” under the Code of Criminal Procedure before proceeding further — an enquiry that includes giving the accused’s side the chance to grill the doctor and bring their own evidence.

The case has a grim background: the accused is charged with killing his wife in a brutal attack, slashing her neck after disrobing her under the pretext of sexual intimacy. His father, the petitioner, produced medical records showing severe paranoid schizophrenia. In earlier proceedings, psychiatrists had found him unfit for trial, leading to prolonged institutional treatment and repeated High Court interventions.

After years of treatment, a Government Mental Health Centre team reported in August 2024 that while the accused still needed lifelong medication and psychiatric follow-up, he was “fit to stand trial.” The Sessions Court examined one of the psychiatrists and immediately fixed a date for framing charges. The accused’s father cried foul — he had not been allowed to cross-examine the doctor or challenge the finding.

Justice Girish agreed. The judgment notes that the psychiatrist’s deposition was “a formal affirmation of the findings” with “nothing… stated… in connection with the competence of the accused to make his defence.” The High Court stressed that Sections 329, 331 and 332 Cr.P.C. require judicial satisfaction of fitness to stand trial, not blind reliance on a report.

“The finding… has to be arrived at by the Court not by merely perusing the report of the Medical Officers concerned,” the Court wrote. “Giving opportunity to the accused or the person representing him to participate in such limited enquiry, is having paramount importance. Any denial… would vitiate the proceedings.”

The petitioner also argued that the trial court should have invoked Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Board. The Court dismissed this, explaining that Sections 328 and 329 Cr.P.C. already create “a more comprehensive and scientific framework” focused on whether mental illness actually renders an accused incapable of defending himself — a question the Mental Healthcare Act provision does not necessarily answer.

Allowing the petition in part, the High Court ordered the Sessions Court to let the petitioner cross-examine the psychiatrist, present additional evidence, and only then decide afresh whether the trial should resume.

The ruling is a reminder that when it comes to mentally ill accused, the law demands more than a doctor’s note — it demands a courtroom test. As Justice Girish’s order makes clear, fit for trial is not a label that can be affixed without giving the defence a fair shot at tearing it off.

Date of Decision: 06/08/2025