Chapter XXV
Section 335 CrPC: Person acquitted on such ground to be detained in safe custody
New Law Update (2024)
Section 344 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Any Criminal Court
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Whenever the finding states that the accused person committed the act alleged, the Magistrate or Court before whom or which the trial has been held shall, if such act would, but for the incapacity found, have constituted an offence,—
(a) order such person to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as the Magistrate or Court thinks fit; or
(b) order such person to be delivered to any relative or friend of such person.
(2) No order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912).
(3) No order for the delivery of the accused to a relative or friend shall be made under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) except upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or Court that the person delivered shall—
(i) be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person;
(ii) be produced for the inspection of such officer, and at such times and places, as the State Government may direct.
(4) The Magistrate or Court shall report to the State Government the action taken under Sub-Section (1).
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 335(1) CrPC
This crucial sub-section mandates the court to either detain an accused, acquitted due to unsoundness of mind but who committed the act, in safe custody or hand them over to a relative or friend for care.
Section 335(3) CrPC
This sub-section specifies the stringent conditions under which a person acquitted on grounds of unsoundness of mind can be delivered to a relative or friend, requiring security and an undertaking for proper care and production for inspection.
Landmark Judgements
Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965):
This Supreme Court judgment is foundational in establishing the principles for an acquittal based on unsoundness of mind, emphasizing the necessity of a thorough inquiry into the accused’s mental state which precedes the application of Section 335 CrPC.
Shanta v. State of Maharashtra (2000):
The Bombay High Court in this case elucidated the State Government’s powers and the conditions for release of a person detained due to unsoundness of mind under provisions similar to Section 335, balancing public safety with the individual’s welfare.
Surendra Kumar Bhatia v. State of Maharashtra (2001):
This Bombay High Court ruling provided clarity on the procedural scheme of Sections 330 to 335 of the CrPC, detailing the steps for handling an accused found to be of unsound mind during trial, including their detention or transfer to a mental health facility.