Precaution to be taken by court while conducting trial of person of unsound mind

 In view of the discussion of law and facts made above, we are satisfied that learned trial court erred in law in resuming full-fledged trial despite receiving categorical opinion of the medical board comprising of experts, conveyed to it by the Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Jaipur, vide letter dated 25.03.2009 that though there was partial improvement in the condition of accused and that he was capable of taking care of himself and would not cause any threat to himself and others, but "he was not capable of understanding the judicial process." This communication was specifically taken note of by the trial court in its order dated 08.04.2009, even then it proceeded with the trial further and did not rectify the mistake despite some of the witnesses, who were examined subsequently, stating about mental unsoundness of the accused at the time of crime. This was a serious lacunae which vitiated the entire trial.

22. In the result, present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 of the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh medical examination of the accused-appellant from a Medical Board consisting of three expert psychiatrists to determine whether the accused-appellant was capable of making his defence during trial or otherwise, and then proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially Sections 329 to 331 thereof, including about his right to be released on bail on fulfillment of the condition envisaged in Section 330 of the Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 848/2013

Decided On: 26.05.2016

 Ramswaroop

Vs.

State of Rajasthan

Coram:

Mohammad Rafiq and Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.

Citation:2017 CRLJ(NOC) 23 Raj

Print Page

What is basic concept of presumption of continuity?

"If a thing or a state of things is
shown to exist, an inference of its
continuity within a reasonably
proximate time both forwards and
backwards may sometimes be drawn.
The presumption of future
continuance is noticed in illus.(d)
to S.114. In appropriate cases, an
inference of the continuity of a
thing or state of things backwards
may be drawn under this section,
though on this point the section
does not give a separate
illustration. The rule that the
presumption of continuance may
operate retorspectively has been
recognised both in India. This is
rule of evidence by which one can
presume the continuity of things
backwards. The presumption of
continuity weakens with the passage
of time. How far the presumption
may be drawn both backwards and
forwards depends upon the nature of
the thing and the surrounding
circumstances."
Evidence of a statement made to a
witness who is not himself called
as a witness may or may not be
hearsay. It is hearsay and
inadmissible when the object of the
evidence is to establish the truth
of what is contained in the
statement. It is not hearsay and is
admissible when it is proposed to
establish by the evidence, not the
truth of the statement but the fact
that it was made. The fact that it
was made quite apart from its
truth, is frequently relevant in
considering the mental state and
conduct thereafter of the witness
on some other persons in whose
presence these statements are
made'."

Supreme Court of India

Balram Prasad Agrawal vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 December, 1996

Bench: G Ray, S Majmudar

JUDGMENT:
THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996

Print Page