[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/17 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 30 January, 2026

                                                                      Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010080612023




                                                                 2026:GAU-AS:1088

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.A./234/2023

            RATAN MEDHI
            S/O- JIBAN MEDHI,
            R/O- VILLAGE DUONIGAON,
            P.S.-MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM-782105.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR .
            REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.

            2:RATUL MEDHI
             S/O- JIBAN MEDHI

            R/O- VILLAGE DUONIGAON

            P.S.- MORIGAON

            DISTRICT- MORIGAON
            ASSAM-782105

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D K BHATTACHARYYA, DILME R.M. MOMIN,MR. A
GAUTAM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Page No.# 2/17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSBEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date on which judgment is reserved : 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ?

      Whether the full judgment has been    : Yes
      pronounced?



                            JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)

Heard Mr. D K Bhattachharya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

B Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Sentence dated 22.03.2022.

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No.

155/2014, whereby the petitioner/appellant was convicted under section 304

(Part-1), IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) only and in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for further 2(two) months.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on the basis of verbal intimation

received on 20.01.2014 at around 8:30 P.M. from one Sibaprasad Medhi

regarding the murder of one Prabin Medhi, a Morigaon Police Station G.D. Entry, Page No.# 3/17

being G.D. Entry No. 484 dated 20.01.2014, was recorded. On the basis of this

Entry, the police started investigation into the matter on that very night. They

proceeded to the place of occurrence and took the present appellant into

custody for the alleged offence. On the very night of 20.01.2014, the police had

conducted the inquest at the place of occurrence and forwarded the dead body

of the deceased for post-mortem examination.

4. On 21.01.2014 at about 10:00 A.M., one Ratul Medhi, i.e. the Respondent

no. 2 herein, who is the brother of the appellant, lodged a First Information

Report inter alia stating that on 20.01.2014 at around 7-8 P.M., his brother

Ratan Medhi killed their uncle Prabin Medhi at their courtyard by inflicting axe

blows on the person of Prabin Medhi. It was alleged that while the appellant

was quarrelling with his father, Jiban Medhi, the deceased, Prabin Medhi had

come there to mediate on the issue when the appellant had inflicted the axe

wounds. Based on the said FIR dated 21.01.2014, Morigaon P.S. Case No.

23/2014 was registered as against the appellant herein under section 302, IPC.

5. That during investigation, the I.O. arrested the accused person/ appellant,

visited the place of occurrence, seized an axe which was the alleged weapon of

the offence and also seized the woolen sweater of the deceased Prabin Medhi.

The axe and the woolen sweater were sent for FSL examination to the Page No.# 4/17

Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara. On the basis of the FSL report, post

mortem report, and materials collected during investigation, on 31.07.2014, the

Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302,

IPC.

6. That, thereafter, on appearance of the accused person and after

purportedly observing necessary formalities, the offence being exclusively triable

by a Sessions Judge, the case was taken up for trial by the Learned Sessions

Judge, Morigaon. On appearance of the accused and after considering the

materials on record, on 18.12.2014, the Learned Trial Court framed charges

under section 302, IPC, against the accused person to which the accused

person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 (fourteen)

witnesses, including the investigating officer and the medical officer. After

closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person/ appellant was

examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C.

8. On consideration and appreciation of the evidence of the aforesaid

witnesses, the Learned Trial Court vide Judgment and order dated 22.03.2022

convicted the accused /appellant under section 304 (Part I), IPC, and sentenced Page No.# 5/17

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay fine of

Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for further 2(two) months.

9. That, it maybe pertinent to mention herein that though the appellant was

granted default bail undersection 167 Cr.P.C., his bail bonds were not accepted

and he was still kept under judicial custody as during the said period he was

kept at the LGBI Mental Institute, Tezpur, in respect of his treatment for

Schizophrenia. However, on his purported discharge from the mental institute,

his bail bond was accepted and he was thereafter released.

10. Pursuant to the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2022, the

appellant was sent to jail. It is stated that being poor and without any resources

to pursue his appeal, neither he nor his family members were able to file the

necessary appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2022. However,

on 13.03.2023, when a team from 'Studio Nilima': Collaborative Network for

Research and Capacity Building (an organization engaged in facilitating access

to justice to marginalized inmates imprisoned in the correctional homes of

Assam) had visited the District Jail, Morigaon, it was apprised of the plight of

the applicant herein. Thereafter, certified copies of relevant documents

pertaining to the Applicant's trial were procured on 18.03.2023. Subsequently, Page No.# 6/17

on 05.04.2023, the Applicant herein authorized the Director of Studio Nilima, to

execute his Affidavit in, and contest, the instant Appeal on his behalf. Only

thereafter, steps were taken to prefer the present appeal on behalf of the

applicant herein.

11. That even as of today, the Appellant herein is being administered

medication for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-related symptoms, under the

District Mental Health Programme, Morigaon Civil Hospital. As of 18.02.2023,

the Appellant was being regularly prescribed with 10 milligrams (mgs) of

Olanzapine and 4 mgs of Risperidone, which are drugs specifically meant for

treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and mania. He was also being

administered 2 mgs of Lorazepam, which is used to treat anxiety disorders, inter

alia. He is also being prescribed with 2 mgs of Trihexyphenidyl, which is used to

treat tremors and spasms. He is also being prescribed 5 mgs of Zolcalm, which

is used to treat insomnia. He has been regularly administered these medicines

in 30-day schedules, under the above- mentioned Programme, since

27.12.2021.

12. It is submitted that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that

there have been gross violations of the provisions of Section 328 and 329 Cr.P.C.

before proceeding with the trial against the appellant herein. The Ld. Trial Court Page No.# 7/17

completely ignored the import of the admitted fact that the appellant had to be

admitted at Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health

(LGBRIMH), Tezpur, for his treatment for schizophrenia before the

commencement of the trial. Under such circumstances, strict compliance of the

provisions of Sections 328 and 329, Cr.P.C., was necessary to ascertain whether

the appellant was fit to stand trial before proceeding with the trial against him.

However, to the contrary, the Ld. Trial Court refrained from considering any

evidence regarding the appellant's fitness to stand trial. Not even a single

document was marked as an exhibit to demonstrate this either. Under such

circumstances, the entire trial of the appellant becomes non est in law and the

impugned judgment and order which culminated from such non est trial cannot

be allowed to stand and therefore liable to be set aside and quashed.

13. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the

fact that the doctors who had been treating the appellant for his mental illness,

i.e. Dr. J. Dutta of Morigaon Civil Hospital and the Superintendent, LGBRIMH,

Tezpur, were never examined to ascertain if at all the appellant was fit to stand

trial and enter into his defence. The learned Trial Court only relied on an

unexhibited discharge report of the appellant from the LGBRIMH, Tezpur, stating

that the appellant was fit to stand trial. However, the said discharge certificate Page No.# 8/17

was neither exhibited nor was the person who had issued the same examined to

ascertain as to whether the accused was fit to stand trial. Under such

circumstances, the trial of the appellant cannot be considered to be a proper

trial and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed

on this ground alone.

14. It is urged that it is settled law that recording of statement under section

313 is not a mere formality and the same cannot be simply seen as a part of

audi alteram partem. Section 313 Cr.P.C. confers a valuable right upon the

accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered not merely a

statutory right but also a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. However, in the present case, the Learned Trial Court had

itself recorded in its orders dated 30.01.2015, 07.02.2015, 13.02.2015,

16.03.2015, 09.04.2015 and 19.05.2015 that the appellant was suffering from

mental psychosis and schizophrenia and was undergoing treatment at the

LGBRIMH, Tezpur. Thereafter, all of a sudden, vide its order dated 20.06.2015,

on the basis of an unexhibited document, the Ld. Trial Court observed:

"Seen the report received from LGBRIMH Tezpur, accused Ratan Medhi is discharged from hospital and fit to stand trial at present".

15. The learned Trial Court ought to have judiciously exercised its powers Page No.# 9/17

conferred under section 329 Cr.P.C. before proceeding with the trial. Moreover,

while examining the appellant under section 313, Cr.P.C., it ought to have

satisfied itself regarding the mental health of the appellant and his capacity to

understand the questions put to him at that stage. Such non-consideration of

vital aspects of the appellant's mental health renders the entire trial non est in

law and on the back drop of such material infirmities, the impugned judgment

and order are liable to be set aside and quashed, submitted by the learned

counsel.

16. At this stage it would be apposite to refer to the part of the impugned

judgment wherein the Learned Trial Court has dealt with the aforesaid aspect of

the matter.

17. The Learned Trial Court has observed as follows:-

".....At this I would like to mention here that though in

the course of argument hearing learned advocate for the accused has argued that accused was not mentally fit, but from the evidence available on record, particularly from the admission of PW 4, the father of the accused during cross- examination, it revealed that 'The accused was mentally ill prior to that incident. At the time of incident, the condition of the accused was not so bad.' Moreover, the wife of the Page No.# 10/17

accused PW 12 in her evidence has categorically admitted that accused is suffering from sleeping disorder only. Her husband can do other activities. He can count money, sometimes he makes wrong counting due to his mental disorder. He can do other activities like taking meals, bath etc. He also knows to show care to his daughter and her. His other activities are found to be good. He only creates problems wherever he does not feel sleepy. Apart from above, during long trial process, no plea of mental illness was taken and accused regularly attended the court and was found mentally fit even during his examinations u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Hence the plea of mental ailment neither exist on the date of incident nor even during trial and hence said plea raised by the learned advocate for the accused could not be accepted."

18. For a proper appreciation of the issue at hand, the relevant provision of law

is quoted herein below:

"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 Page No.# 11/17

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."

19. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves one in no manner of doubt

that as and when it appears to the Magistrate or Court that the accused is of

unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, such

Magistrate or Court has no option but to try the fact of such unsoundness and

incapacity. It is only after considering the medical and other evidence that may

be produced before such Magistrate or Court and on being satisfied regarding

the fact of such unsoundness or incapacity as the case may be, the Magistrate

or Court is required to record a finding to that effect and to postpone further

proceedings in the case.

20. A perusal of the order sheet in Sessions Case No. 155 of 2014 would show

that it is reflected in the Order dated 30.01.2015 that it appears from the

behavior of the accused that he is suffering from ailment and it was directed

that the accused be produced at Morigaon Civil Hospital.

21. Subsequently, as reflected in the Order dated 13.02.2015, he was

examined by the psychiatrist at Morigaon Civil Hospital and on that date, the

said psychiatrist Dr. J. Dutta was present in the Court and submitted his report Page No.# 12/17

and as per the report, it is disclosed that the appellant/accused is provisionally

diagnosed as suffering from a major mental disorder and needs further

treatment regularly and immediately and that he is not in the position of a

normal person at present.

22. After personal hearing of Dr. J. Dutta as well as the accused, the learned

Court formed the opinion that the accused was incapable of making his defence

due to his mental disorder and hence the trial of the case was postponed under

the provisions of Section 329 CrPC till his recovery.

23. It is further seen from a subsequent Order dated 19-05-15 that a report

was received from LGBRIMH, Tezpur stating that the accused, Ratan Mehdhi,

was examined and diagnosed as having schizophrenia and was undergoing

treatment. However, within one month thereafter, the following order came to

be passed:

"The P.O. is on leave.

Accused Ratan Medhi is produced from custody. He is remanded to custody till the next date.

Seen the report received from LGBRIMH, Tezpur, accused Ratan Medhi is discharged from hospital and fit to stand trial at present. Hence, the case is fixed for evidence ."

Page No.# 13/17

24. Therefore, what transpires from the above is that the learned Judge who

was in charge of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Morigaon on that day, merely

on the basis of the report and without affording any opportunity to the accused,

straightaway fixed the case for evidence. Neither was the said report exhibited

nor was the doctor who submitted the said report examined in order to

determine whether the appellant was indeed fit to stand trial.

25. At this point, Section 331 CrPC may be referred to, which reads as follows:

"Section 331. Resumption of inquiry or trial.

(1) Whenever an inquiry or a trial is postponed under section 328 or section 329, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, may at any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind, resume the inquiry or trial and require the accused to appear or be brought before such Magistrate or Court."

26. Therefore, Section 331(1) CrPC empowers the Magistrate to resume the

trial at any time when the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind.

Whether the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind is naturally a

matter of inquiry for which evidence is required to be taken from the psychiatrist

or the doctor who submitted the report regarding his mental condition.

Page No.# 14/17

27. This view finds support from the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section

332 CrPC which provides as follows:-

"Section 332(2)---

If the Magistrate or Court considers the accused to be still incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall act according to the provisions of section 328 or section 329, as the case may be, and if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, shall deal with such accused in accordance with the provisions of section 330."

28. Obviously, the Magistrate or Court cannot consider the accused to be still

incapable of making his defence without again trying the fact of unsoundness of

mind as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 329, which mandates the

Magistrate or Court to consider such medical and other evidence as may be

produced before him or it, and also obliges such Court or Magistrate to record a

specific finding to that effect. However, no such independent finding is

discernible in the order dated 26.06.2015 reproduced above, which was passed

without any further inquiry and solely on the basis of the medical report, which

itself is not on record.

29. In the case of Bangla Bhagti versus the State of Assam reported in Page No.# 15/17

(2012) 1 GLR 115, a Division Bench of this Court had observed as follows:-

"37. As provided by section 329, Cr.PC, the trial court, dealing

with a person of unsound mind, in the first stance, is required to try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity. In the present case, as per the report issued by the LGBRIMH, Tezpur the accused had recovered considerably, thereby meaning that he did not recover fully. That apart, subsequently, he was required to be sent to the Psychiatry Department, Silchar. The trial Court, on the basis of the report (not proved) issued by the petitioner, Psychiatry Department, Silchar Medical College Hospital concluded that the accused was fit to face trial. In fact, the learned Judge neither recorded as to what were the findings regarding mental health of the accused, nor examined the Medical Officers, who examined/treated the accused and submitted the reports. Therefore, it is found that the learned trial Judge did not try the fact regarding unsoundness and incapacity of the accused."

30. A similar state of affairs appears to have prevailed in the present case also,

whereby the learned Court below proceeded to resume the trial merely on the

basis of a medical report which was not even proved, let alone making any

further inquiry or affording any opportunity to the accused to participate in such

inquiry.

Page No.# 16/17

31. Furthermore, the manner in which the learned Trial Court, in the impugned

judgment, has sought to explain away the mental condition of the

accused/appellant on the basis of the evidence of non-medical witnesses cannot

be accepted in view of the provisions of Sections 329, 331 and 332 CrPC, which

are to be resorted to prior to proceeding with the trial or the resumption

thereof.