Uttarakhand High Court
Awarded To Sanjay Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010036772026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Reference No. 01 of 2026
In the Matter of Capital Punishment
Awarded to Sanjay Singh --Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. Prateek Tripathi and
Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya,
Brief Holder for the State.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2026
Sanjay Singh --Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Presence:-
Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya,
Brief Holder for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
This is second round when the appeal has come to this
Court. Earlier, by judgment and order dated 21.08.2021, passed in
Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2015, State v. Sanjay Singh, by the court
of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri,
the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. It is the
charge upon the appellant that on 13.12.2014, between 10-10:30
1
UKHC010036772026
a.m., he committed murder of his real brother Surendra Singh, his
mother Meena Devi and sister-in-law Smt. Kanta Devi.
2. Against that conviction, Criminal Appeal No. 441 of
2021, Sanjay Singh v. State, was preferred and, at the same time,
for confirmation of death sentence, Reference No. 02 of 2021, In
the matter of Capital Punishment awarded to Sanjay Singh v. State
was also received in this Court, which were decided by a common
judgment and order dated 10.05.2022, wherein the judgment and
order dated 21.08.2021 convicting and sentencing the appellant
was set aside. In fact, the Court had noted that in the trial of the
appellant, the provisions of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) read with Section 105 of the Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017 have not been complied with. In fact, in para
17 of the judgment dated 10.05.2022, in the last four lines, the
Court observed “….As the learned Trial Judge has not followed
the procedure prescribed, the entire trial is vitiated, and
hence, the appeal has to be allowed”.
3. After remand, after medical examination of the
appellant, the charges were framed afresh and based on the earlier
examination-in-chief, the witnesses were cross-examined. Again,
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced.
4. At this stage, much of the discussion of the fact is not
required to be made. Suffice it to say that after the incident of
13.12.2014, when the appellant was produced before the
Magistrate on 14.12.2014, he was also examined by Mahesh
Kumar Khetan, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Buarari, Tehri
2
UKHC010036772026
Garhwal. He opined then that “This person is physically fit but
mental illness may be present, so referred to medical
psychologist for evaluation of his illness”.
5. There have been multiple reports on record, which
suggest that during the pendency of the trial and even thereafter,
the appellant was still under treatment for his mental illness. Not
only this, even after first round of remand by this Court, on
07.06.2024, a report from Department of Psychiatry, All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand (“the AIIMS,
Rishikesh”) was received in the trial court, which records as
follows:
“(i) The patient is suffering from Schizophrenia – currently in
partial remission. After starting Tablet Risperidone 8 mg/d
in divided doses.
(ii) The patient requires continued treatment and regular follow-
ups.
(iii) At present, the patient appears fit to stand trial.”
6. In fact, this report of 07.06.2024 of the of the AIIMS,
Rishikesh has another background behind it.
7. After remand of the case in the first round, after
framing of the charges and after cross-examinations of the
witnesses already examined, on 12.04.2024, the trial court
proceeded to examine the appellant under Section 313 of the Code.
But, in the proceeding of that date, the court had recorded that the
appellant was not answering any question, therefore, his statement
under Section 313 of the Code could not be recorded. Thereafter,
the appellant was referred to the AIIMS, Rishikesh to assess his
mental condition and the report dated 07.06.2024 was received.
3
UKHC010036772026
8. On multiple occasions, in the notesheet of the trial
court, the court has recorded that the appellant was not giving any
answer to any question that was asked to him under Section 313
of the Code. It continued and suddenly on 11.12.2024, the trial
court recorded that since the appellant is not answering any
question asked to him, it means that he has nothing to say and,
accordingly, the examination under Section 313 of the Code was
concluded. Arguments were heard and the judgment delivered.
9. There is immense material to assess the mental
condition of the appellant during the course of trial and even
before that, before framing of charge. As stated, for the first time
on 14.12.2024, the appellant was examined in the District
Hospital, Buarari, Tehri Garhwal.
10. What is the condition of the appellant now? He was
suffering with Schizophrenia on 07.06.2024. The appellant did not
answer to any question asked to him under Section 313 of the
Code. Was it because of his mental illness? If so, this examination
under Section 313 of the Code loses its significance. In fact, its
relevancy is also lost in such a situation.
11. After hearing the parties, we are of the considered view
that before proceeding further, a thorough investigation and report
with regard to mental condition of the appellant should be placed
before this Court.
12. Therefore, this Court requests the Director, AIIMS,
Rishikesh to get the appellant admitted, on his production in the
4
UKHC010036772026
AIIMS, Rishikesh and get all the observation/investigation, etc. of
the appellant as per the protocol that is required before
ascertaining the mental condition of a person. After thorough
examination, investigation, etc., the Court requests the Director,
AIIMS, Rishikesh, to place the report before this Court, before
07.09.2026.
13. The Court directs the Superintendent of Jail
concerned, where the appellant is confined to produce the
appellant without delay before the Director, AIIMS, Rishikesh. The
Court requests the learned State Counsel to communicate this
order to the authorities concerned immediately.
14. List on 07.09.2026.
15. Let a copy of this order be also forwarded to the
Director, AIIMS, Rishikesh.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.08.2026 04.08.2026
Avneet/
5
