T.Dhanasekar vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14288 Mad

                                                          Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                             DATED : 11.08.2022

                                    CORAM :

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                         Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022
                                  and
                    Crl.M.P.Nos.9784 & 9787 of 2022


T.Dhanasekar                                       ..    Petitioner


                                      Vs


State rep. by The Inspector of Police
V6 Kolathur Police Station
Chennai.                                           ..    Respondent



Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the impugned order dated

25.05.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6099 of 2021 in S.C.No.32 of 2021 by

the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai.


            For Petitioner      :       Mr.G.R.Hari

            For Respondent      :       Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                        Government Advocate (Crl. Side)


1/28
                                                           Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022




                                 ORDER

The revision is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions

Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai dated 25.05.2022 in

Crl.M.P.No.6099 of 2021 in S.C.No.32 of 2021, in and by which the

learned Judge decided the application filed by the petitioner / accused in

this case under Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against him is that on 03.12.2020,

between 05.00AM to 06.00AM, at his house, he pushed down his wife, sat

on her and strangulated her neck and when the child, aged about thirteen

years, tried to prevent him, he pushed down the child also and the child

immediately called the grandparents through mobile phone and the

grandparents immediately rushed to the house and when they went, the

door was locked from inside. They went to the window and the child

opened the window door and upon instructions of the grandparents and the

house-owner, handed over an iron rod from inside the house, with which

the lock in the grill door was opened and the main door was broken and

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

when they entered the house, they found the wife lying unconscious and

the petitioner sitting still in a chair. Immediately, the wife was taken to the

hospital and the doctor pronounced her dead and hence the charge.

3. On 26.03.2021, the petitioner filed the present application stating

that the petitioner suffers from the mental illness to an extent that he is not

in a position to undergo the trial. The prosecution filed counter on

26.06.2021. After the prosecution filed counter affidavit, the Trial Court

examined the accused by putting forth certain questions, as to what was his

name etc and tried to ascertain whether the accused was able to understand

the questions of the Court and answer the same. Thereafter, by the letter

dated 31.8.2021, the Trial Court also referred the accused for evaluation by

an expert in the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk. After admitting the

accused as In-Patient and observing him, the Medical Officer, the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Institute of Mental Health and the Unit Chief, the

Senior Civil Surgeon, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, both

being experts in the filed, submitted their observation report and the report

reads as follows:

“This patient, Mr.Dhanasekar was registered in

Institute of Mental Health on 05.02.2020.

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

On mental status examination, he had hearing

voices, depressed mood and crying spells. After detailed

evaluation and workup, he was diagnosed as a case of

Depression with Psychotic features and he was treated

for the same.

Currently he is oriented to time, place and person

and he can understand the Court procedures and fit to

stand trial.”

It is seen that the petitioner also underwent a MRI Scan of Brain and it was

certified by the Assistant Professor that there was no abnormality detected

in the Brain. Thereafter, on further objection on the side of the petitioner /

accused, the learned Trial Court again referred the matter by its

communication dated 22.09.2021 to the Mental Health Department by

directing the Mental Health Review Board to re-examine the accused.

After such exercise, again the Board gave its observation report, which is

extracted as follows:

“This patient, Mr.Dhanasekar was registered in

Institute of Mental Health on 05.02.2020.

He has been reporting in OPD from 31.12.2021

for 10 days before Medical Officer.

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

On Serial mental status examination, he had low

mood, hearing voices at times, he was diagnosed as a

case of depression with psychotic features and was

treated for the same.

Currently he is oriented to time, place, person and

he can understand the charges against him and he is fit

to stand trial.”

Based on the said two reports and upon the answers given by the petitioner

/ accused in the examination of the Court, the Trial Court found that the

accused is not of unsound mind and is fit to undergo Trial and accordingly

answered the question and posed the matter for proceeding further with the

trial. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. Before this Court, the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner is two fold. Firstly, he would submit that the procedure adopted

by the Trial Court as well as by the experts is erroneous in law. He would

further submit that the Trial Court cannot directly address the question as

to the fitness of the person to undergo the trial to the experts and in turn

should insist them to examine and determine his mental condition alone

and based on their opinion and independently decide for itself whether the

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

person is fit to undergo the Trial or not and therefore, he would submit that

the term of reference to the expert itself is erroneous. Secondly, by

attacking the reports, he would submit that the observation reports did not

delineate and explain what is the procedure which was followed by the

experts and what are the tests done by them in detail, except to say “Mental

Status Examination” which is a very general term and therefore, the

individual expert in the first instance and also the Mental Board, did not

follow any proper procedure while determining the condition of the

petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that there was no proper

examination of the petitioner / accused.

5. He would further submit that, in this context, the Trial Court

ought not to have ventured to examine the accused himself and come to the

conclusion as to his mental status. Therefore, both the procedures adopted

by the Trial Court is erroneous. This apart, he would also further submit

that after the examination by the experts, subsequently, the petitioner

accused is also undergoing treatment in a private hospital. When a Brain

Scan was taken in a private facility, it has shown abnormalities in his

Brain. The private Doctors, with whom the petitioner is taking treatment

have suspected that the petitioner / accused is a case of Neurodegenerative

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

Disorder (SCA-17), which would result in degeneration of his cognitive

abilities including the Intelligent Quotient and therefore, the same will

have direct bearing in determining whether the petitioner / accused is fit to

undergo the trial or not. The said aspect was totally omitted to be

considered by the experts to whom the matter was referred by the Trial

Court. This apart, he would submit that from the medical report given by

the Savitha Medical College Hospital, it would be seen that even the

diagnosed disease differs. As far as the diagnosis by the experts in Savitha

Medical College Hospital is concerned, the accused was diagnosed as

suffering from Schizophrenia. Whereas, the experts referred by the Trial

Court have diagnosed the accused as Depression with Psychotic Features.

Therefore, there is serious prejudice as far as the accused is concerned in

the question of determining whether he is fit of comprehending the facts

and the process of trial and whether he is in a position to formulate the

defence for himself so that the trial is fair.

6. Learned counsel had placed the judgment of this Court in

Kaliyappan Represented by his father Muniyappan vs State1, in and by

which this Court has gone into the question of unsoundness of mind in

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

detail and by appointing an amicus curiae to examine all the aspects

relating to the same and has given a detailed ruling. He would submit that

from the reading of the said judgment, the findings of the Trial Court that

the petitioner is not of unsoundness of mind, cannot be sustained and

therefore, he would submit that the trial cannot be proceeded further unless

the petitioner is examined by appropriate experts. He would further submit

that the National Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences, Bangalore

(NIMHANS), is the most competent body and has facilities of all the

expertise to diagnose these kinds of extraordinary diseases which are there

in the petitioner / accused and therefore, he would submit that the

petitioner can be referred to a team of experts to the said institution so that

a fair and proper decision can be taken as to his mental status and whether

he would be in a fit position to undergo trial.

7. Upon the insistence of this Court, learned counsel has also filed a

detailed memo as to the nature of questions to be addressed to the Medical

Panel and according to him, instead of directly asking whether the accused

would be fit to undergo trial, the following questions should be addressed

to the Panel:

“a. What is the neurological diagnosis of the petitioner?

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

b. How is the current cognitive functions of the accused,

including attention, comprehension, memory, planning

and organization?

c. Is there any decline in IQ of the petitioner due to any

disease?

d. Whether the accused suffers from any

Neurodegenerative disorder?”

8. Per Contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would

submit that, in this case, the accused is facing a serious charge of

murdering his own wife. The accused is an alcoholic. On account of which,

he is suffering from Depression and Psychotic Diseases. But, he is in a

position to comprehend as to what is a crime and what are the procedures

which are going on in the trial. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the

questions put forth by the Trial Court and the answers given by the

accused, it would be clear that his mental illness is not to the extent that he

cannot face the trial or trial should be postponed. The Trial Court had

taken extraordinary care in referring the petitioner twice to the concerned

experts and obtaining opinion and the efforts of the Trial Court is

appreciated. He would submit that it is only the observation report, which

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

is placed before the Trial Court and if the details as to the nature of the

tests etc, if would have been called for by the Trial Court or by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner / accused, the same would

have been produced by the experts and no fault whatsoever can be found

by the diagnosis of the experts. He would submit that nothing prevented

the petitioner / accused to examine the private expert to give any contra

opinion before the Trial Court. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the

Trial Court was right in taking into consideration of the experts' opinion,

and its own interaction with the accused while determining the question

that the trial can be proceeded further. Therefore, he would submit that the

issue has been rightly determined by the Trial Court in accordance with the

provisions under Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

would pray that there is no merits in the revision.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

perused the material records of this case.

10. Apart from the material records of this case, I have also gone

through the judgment of this Court in Kaliyappan (supra) in detail. This

apart, learned counsel also had produced the medical literature relating to

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

the alleged disease of the petitioner. I have gone though the same also.

11. At the outset, the issue relating to mental illness has to be

approached with due sensitivity by this Court. As a matter of fact, the Trial

Court has also approached the entire issue with required seriousness and

sensitivity. But, however, only the finding of the Trial Court in the teeth of

the observation report which determines that there is some mental illness

on the accused that the person is not of an unsound mind alone cannot be

accepted by this Court. The question, what is “unsoundness of mind” has

been dealt with in detail by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. It is

useful to extract paragraph 22 and 23 of the said judgment which reads as

follows:

“22. The interesting aspect about Section 328 of the

Cr.P.C. lies in the different sets of procedure

contemplated for inquires against persons of unsound

mind and those suffering from mental retardation. The

expression “unsoundness of mind” occurring in

Sections 328 and 329 Cr.P.C has not been defined

anywhere. Under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, a

lunatic was defined under Section 3(5) to mean an idiot

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

or a person of unsound mind. The 1912 Act was

repealed by the Mental Health Act, 1987. The

definition of “Lunatic”was replaced by a definition of

mental illness which reads as under:

Section 2(1):

““Mentally ill person” means a person who is in need of treatment by reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation”.

23. The The Mental Health Act, 1987, has now been

repealed by the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Section

2(s) contains an expanded definition of the expression

“mental illness”which runs as under:

““mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete developments of mind of a person, specially characterised by sub-normality of intelligence;””

Therefore, it can be seen that the expression “unsoundness of mind” is

neither defined by the Indian Penal Code nor in any other statute. The

Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, contained the definition of the word “lunatic”

and the Mental Health Act, 1987, has been now repeated by the Mental

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

Health Care Act, 2017, now, what is on record is only the definition of the

word “mental illness”, which is extracted above. Therefore, it can be seen

that the petitioner is also mentally ill namely, suffering from Depression

with Psychotic Disorder.

12. According to learned counsel for the petitioner / accused, the

mental illness of the accused is termed as “Schizophrenia”. Apart from the

same on a subsequent examination of the Brain of the petitioner, where the

impressions are as follows:

“Impression:

• Early Cerebral and Cerebellar atrophy.

• Few chronic lacunar infarcts involving the

bilateral frontoparietal subcortical white matter.

• No evidence of acute infarcts / no bleed / no

SOL.

• Bilateral maxillary and ethmoidal sinusitis.

• Bilateral normal 7th and 8th nerve complexes.

• No evidence of bilateral hippocampal or mesial

emporal scierosis.

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

• Normal optic nerves optic chaism optic tracts

and optic radiation.”

The consequent conclusion of the Doctor is as follows:

“I hereby refer Mr.Dhanasekar under treatment of

Schizophrenia has been referred for diagnostic

clarification. He has difficulty in walking, cognitive

decline, which is not completely explained by

Schizophrenia. Henceforth, in view of, possibility of

neurodegenerative disorders. I have asked the family to

attend Savitha OPD, for Neuropsychic assessment,

management of Schizophrenia and neurological

evaluation. Kindly do the needful.”

As a matter of fact, the Consultant Psychiatrist, who is treating the

petitioner opined as follows:

“To whom so even it may concern, This is to inform,

Mr.Dhanasekar has been diagnosed as

Neurodegenerative Disorder (SCA 17).

It has cognitive decline, focal defects and deteriorating

course.

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

He is suggested to follow up a Neurologist and asked to

go for Neuropsychiatric assessment.”

13. Upon going through the relevant medical literature on the

subject, relating to the Neurodegenerative Disorder is concerned, it is seen

that alcoholism is one of the reasons for such disorder. The disease affects

both the cerebrum as well as cerebellum. When it affects cerebellum, it

affects the motor skills such as walking difficulty etc, which are present in

the accused. But, only when it affects the cerebrum, it is said as “SCA-17”,

where it affects the cognitive skills.

14. The relevant portion of the medical literature is extracted

hereunder for ready reference:

“SCA usually results from damage to the part of the

brain that controls muscle coordination (cerebellum) or

its connections. Many conditions can cause ataxia,

including alcohol misuse, stroke, tumor, brain

degeneration, multiple sclerosis, certain medications

and genetic disorders1. Ataxia is diagnosed through 1 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER), Ataxia, (April 09, 2022) https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ataxia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355652

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

methods including medical history, family history,

blood tests to rule out other conditions presenting

similar symptoms, and neurological evaluations. 12

types of ataxia, Friedrich’s ataxia and a number of

others have genetic blood tests to aid diagnosis;

however, some forms of SCA cannot be precisely

diagnosed as they have not been genetically identified.

In spinocerebellar ataxia, this makes up about 25% to

40% of cases. As there is an overlap in symptoms

between the different types of spinocerebellar ataxia,

genetic testing can be used to concretely diagnose the

type of SCA affecting a patient. In these cases,

neurological examinations that may include MRI scans

of the brain and spine may be used to diagnose SCA2.

TABLE SHOWING SCA WHICH AFFECTS THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION AND WHICH HAS NORMAL COGNITIVE FUNCTION:

Cognitive Spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs) function

2 Lois Zoppi, What is Spinocerebellar Ataxia? (Sep 16, 2018) https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Spinocerebellar-Ataxia.aspx#

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

Cognitive SCAs1, 2, 3,6,7,8,10,12,17, 19,21, dysfunction DRPLA

Dementia SCAs 2, 3(?), 8,12,19, DRPLA

Mental SCA13 retardation

Normal SCAs 4,5,11,14,15,16,18,20, cognitive 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29, EA 1 and 2 function

A diagnostic approach to ataxia may include:

1.Neurological and medical history, including drug and

toxin exposures

2.Family history of neurological problems

3.Neurological and medical examinations

4.Blood tests to rule out specific deficiencies and toxins

5.Urine screen for mercury exposure

6.Brain imaging: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

or computed tomography (CT)

7.Neuroimaging of the spinal cord.

8.Electrophysiologic testing (electromyography and

nerve conduction velocity testing) if there are signs or

symptoms of peripheral nerve dysfunction

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

Searching for a specific diagnosis in patients with

ataxia of unknown cause is highly recommended.

Investigation may reveal a reversible cause of

cerebellar dysfunction, such as vitamin E deficiency,

Wilson’s disease, cerebellar dysfunction due to thyroid

abnormalities, or cerebellar injury due to a toxin.

If no acquired cause of ataxia is found, or if the history

suggests an inherited cerebellar disease, specific

genetic testing is indicated. Examples include blood

testing for Friedreich’s ataxia or any of the testable

spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs). Genetic disorders may

arise anew, so that genetic testing is indicated if all

others results are unrevealing3.

Confirmatory Test:

SCA-17 (TBP) Repeat Expansion Test

1.CAG/CAA repeat size from 41 to 50. More than 75%

of individuals have intellectual deterioration; in some

3 Diagnosing Ataxia https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_clinics/ataxia/conditions/ataxia_diagn osis.html

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

individuals, intellectual problems and involuntary

movements are the only signs. Psychiatric symptoms or

dementia, parkinsonism, and chorea – a clinical

constellation resembling Huntington disease – are

more frequently observed in individuals with CAG/CAA

repeats in this range than in individuals with larger

repeats [Stevanin et al 2003, Bauer et al

2004, Toyoshima et al 2004].

2.CAG/CAA repeat size from 43 to 47. Individuals with

an allele of 43-47 repeats tend to have a

parkinsonian phenotype [Kim et al 2009, Chen et al

2010].

3.CAG/CAA repeat size from 50 to 60. All individuals

have ataxia and 75% have reduced intellectual

function. Pyramidal signs (e.g., increased deep tendon

reflexes) and dystonia are more common than in those

with smaller repeats.

4.CAG/CAA repeat size greater than 60. Two

individuals with repeats in this size range have been

reported. The largest CAG/CAA repeat is 66 repeats,

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

observed in one familial case [Maltecca et al 2003].

The child developed gait disturbance at age three years

followed by spasticity, dementia, and psychiatric

symptoms. The other child, who had a de novo CAG

repeat expansion of 63 repeats, developed ataxia and

intellectual deterioration at age six years followed later

by spasticity [Koide et al 1999]. Brain MRI showed

severe atrophy in the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain

stem4.”

15. Thus, it can be seen that there is a confirmative test as to SCA-

17, which is also very much available. On a perusal of the report of the

private Doctor, it is seen by this Court that the said confirmative test is not

taken. Besides the report of the MRI Scan also states that it is an early

disorder, which can be said that it has started recently or the disorder is in

the starting stage. Therefore, it is seen in these kinds of diseases are

progressively degenerative in nature thereby, affecting the cognitive skills

increasingly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while considering the

plight of mentally ill persons languishing in Jail on account of the 4 Toyoshima, Tasuko & Onodera, Osamu & Yamada, Mitsunori & Tsuji, Shoji & Takahashi, Hitoshi, Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 17, (July 28, 2022)

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

postponement of trial, had in News Item “38 Yrs In Jail Without Trial”

Published In The Hindustan Times, In Re, (2007) 15 SCC 18, directed

periodical examination of such persons and it is useful to extract relevant

portion of paragraph 26 of the said judgment :

“26. As there are a large number of mentally ill

undertrial prisoners in various psychiatric

hospitals/nursing homes, we consider it just and proper

to issue some general directions to avoid such mentally

ill persons languishing in psychiatric hospitals for long

periods:

…….

(iv) As regards the undertrial prisoners who have been

charged with grave offences for which life

imprisonment or death penalty is the punishment, such

persons shall be subjected to examination periodically

as provided in sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) of Section

39 of the Act and the officers named therein (visitors,

medical officer in charge of the hospital and the

examining medical officer respectively) should send the

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

reports to the court as to whether the undertrial

prisoner is fit enough to face the trial to defend the

charge. The Sessions Courts where the cases are

pending should also seek periodic reports from such

hospitals and every such case shall be given a hearing

at least once in three months. The Sessions Judge shall

commence the trial of such cases as soon as it is found

that such mentally ill person has been found fit to face

trial.”

16. In the light of the judgment of this Court in Kaliyappan (supra),

it can be seen that the matter has to be strictly decided as per Section 329

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, if any mental retardation or

unsoundness of mind is pleaded, it has to be first tried by the Court by first

referring the person to a Psychiatrist or a Clinical Psychologist and the

opinion of the said person has to be obtained as to whether the person is

suffering from unsoundness of mind. If the report does not mention any

mental illness, it will be open for the Magistrate to proceed with the trial. If

the report mentions any mental illness, then, the decision has to be taken

under Section 329(2) as to whether such unsoundness of mind would

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

render the accused incapable of entering his defence and if the findings of

incapability is arrived, then two options are available for the Magistrate.

First, he can examine the prima facie records of the prosecution and if

there is no prima facie case, the person can be discharged. But, if there is a

prima facie case, the trial has to be postponed further. While postponing

the trial, the Magistrate has to decide whether the unsoundness of mind is

treatable or not and if so, what procedure has to be adopted? In this case,

since the expert itself has opined that the mental illness of the person is not

such in nature so as to render him unfit to face the trial and coupled with

the fact that the answers given by the accused in the interaction, the Trial

Court has decided to proceed further with the trial.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was not proper

on the part of the Trial Court to have questioning the accused. The

questioning which is prohibited under Section 329(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is questioning regarding the merits of this case, such as

questioning of charges etc and not the interaction of the Court with the

accused so has to determine his capability or fitness to enter his defence

which is prohibited. Therefore, on that score, I am unable to agree with

learned counsel for the petitioner. But, however, considering the overall

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

circumstances of the case, that the accused is now said to have been

suffering with Neurodegenerative disorder, which will worsen the mental

condition of the accused everyday, firstly, it has to be ascertained whether

the accused suffers from such disorder or not. Secondly, if such disorder is

found, what is the stage of the disease and whether it has affected his

Intelligent Quotient to such a level not to proceed with the trial or not.

18. Taking cue from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, that periodical check up, once in six months should be done, so as to

do justice to both for the proceeding with the trial and imposition of the

punishment, and as well as the alleged mental condition of the accused, I

am of the view that in this case, because of efflux of time of six months,

once again, a fresh examination can be done with appropriate questions

from this Court, so that the problem can be resolved and the concern on

behalf of the petitioner accused can also be addressed and at the same

time, appropriate decision can be taken so as to the proceeding with the of

trial.

19. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner / accused can be

referred afresh to a Panel of Doctors, namely, the Mental Health Board of

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk by co-opting a Neurological expert

also and by also including the Consultant Psychologist, who has given the

certificate / treatment to the petitioner / accused namely,

Dr.V.Venkateshwaran and the panel shall examine the following:

(i) Whether the accused is on date suffering from any

mental illness as referred under Section 3 of the Mental

Health Care Act?

(ii) If so, what is the nature of the disease?

(iii) What are the characteristics and the attendant

behavioral abnormality attributed to the said disease?

(iv) Whether the petitioner accused also suffers from

any Neurodegenerative disorder, more specifically SCA

17?

(v) If he suffers from such disorder, what is the stage of

the disorder and by the parameters, what would be the

loss of his cognitive skill and what would be his range

of Intelligent Quotient and if there is any loss of

Intelligent Quotient, what are the characteristics and

behavior attributable to the said disorder?

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

(vi) With the overall mental condition of the accused,

whether he would be in a position to comprehend what

is right and what is wrong and normal procedure, which

transpires in the Court including questioning about

what has he done in the past and understanding the

imputations against him, the evidence and

circumstances against him in a manner as to rebut /

explain if he choses to?

20. The petitioner accused shall be referred to the above panel for

examination by the Trial Court within a period of one week from the date

of receipt of copy of this order. The said panel shall submit its report

within a period of two months therefrom to the Trial Court and upon the

receipt of the report, the Trial Court can take a call and determine whether

the petitioner / accused is in a position to face trial by entering his defence

as per Section 329 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if it

concluded that he is fit, accordingly proceed further with the trial

expeditiously. Otherwise, appropriate decision as to the postponement can

be taken as discussed supra.

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

21. In view thereof, the criminal revision is partly allowed on the

above conditions.

Index : yes/no                                             11.08.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
drm




To

1. The Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethimandram Allikulam, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Inspector of Police V6 Kolathur Police Station Chennai.

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

drm

Crl.R.C.No.940 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.9784 & 9787 of 2022

11.08.2022