Chapter XXV
Section 329 CrPC: Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before Court
New Law Update (2024)
Section 373 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate or Court of Session
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(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 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.
(2) The trial of the fact of the unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused shall be deemed to be part of his trial before the Magistrate or Court.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 329(1)
This sub-section outlines the crucial initial procedure where a court, upon suspecting an accused’s mental unsoundness and inability to defend themselves during trial, must first conduct a separate inquiry into this fact based on evidence, before deciding to postpone the main proceedings.
Section 329(2)
This sub-section clarifies that the preliminary inquiry into the accused’s mental state and their capacity to participate in their defence, as mandated by sub-section (1), is not a separate proceeding but is considered an integral part of the main criminal trial itself.
Landmark Judgements
Ratan Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1971 SC 1778:
This seminal judgment clarified the distinction between unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence (covered by Section 84 IPC) and unsoundness of mind at the time of trial (covered by Section 329 CrPC). The Supreme Court held that Section 329 is concerned with the accused’s present mental state and their capacity to understand the proceedings and make a proper defence. If found incapable, the trial must be postponed.
Surendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1091:
While extensively dealing with the defence of insanity under Section 84 IPC, this case also underscored the procedural safeguards under Section 329 CrPC. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of a meticulous inquiry by the court, based on medical and other relevant evidence, to determine if an accused is competent to stand trial, ensuring a fair legal process for individuals with mental health issues.