Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Urn: Crlmp / 2345U / 2025Sonu Ram … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:20243) on 13 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:20243]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 975/2025
Sonu Ram Pachauri S/o Late Shri Shibbo, aged about 32 Years,
R/o Village Chitaura, Distt. Dholpur, Police Station Kolari, Distt.
Dholpur (Raj).
----Victim-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Puran Singh S/o Shri Chotelal, Through His Biological Son
Ved Prakash Tyagi S/o Puran Singh R/o Village Chitaura,
Distt. Dholpur, Police Station Kolari, Distt. Dholpur (Raj).
----Accused-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma
Mr. Suraj Kumar Dixit and
Mr. Anurag
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP with
Mr. Shubham Sain
Mr. Sagar Kumar for Mr. Anirudh Tyagi
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
13/05/2026
Reportable
An accused cannot be prosecuted under the law unless and
until he is certified to be of sound mind. The Right to Fair Trial is a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and no person should be condemned unheard.
A criminal trial cannot proceed against an accused who is
mentally unfit, as it violates the fundamental principles of a fair
trial. The accused must possess the cognitive capacity to
understand the charges framed against him, follow the
proceedings and put his defence.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
When the accused who is being prosecuted under any law,
does not possess the ability to understand the Court proceedings,
and if he is not able to defend himself, he is incompetent to face
trial.
If the criminal process is jeopardized then there would be no
fair trial. So, to ensure a fair trial and to protect the principles of
natural justice, the assessment of the accused person’s mental
capacity is necessary to establish that he is able to understand the
proceedings of trial and put his defence before the Court.
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a
challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.12.2024,
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in
Sessions Trial No. 34/2024, by which the application submitted by
the biological son of the accused-respondent-Puran Singh under
Section 329 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the accused-respondent
has been released. The Trial Court has also issued direction to the
biological son of the accused-respondent to look after the
accused-respondent with further directions to submit the mental
fitness certificate of the accused-respondent before the Trial Court
in every six months.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.
40/1994 was registered against the accused-respondent with the
Police Station Kolari, District Dholpur wherein allegations of
committing murder were levelled against him. After registration of
the aforesaid FIR, the accused-respondent remained absconding
for a considerable amount of time and accordingly, chargesheet
under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was submitted against him in his
absence. Almost 30 years after registration of the aforesaid FIR,
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
the accused-respondent was arrested by the police on 24.01.2024
and at the relevant time, the mental condition of the accused-
respondent was fit and fine and he was not suffering from any
kind of mental disorder. Counsel submits that now, an application
under Section 329 Cr.P.C. has been submitted by the biological son
of the accused-respondent, averring that the accused-respondent
is suffering from Dementia and he is not in a position to
understand the trial proceedings against him and submit his
defence before the Trial Court. Therefore, a prayer was made by
the applicant to release the accused-respondent and hand him
over to the applicant, i.e. the biological son of the accused-
respondent. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application
submitted by the biological son of the accused-respondent has
been erroneously entertained in the light of the provisions
contained under Section 329 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the
aforesaid application was submitted at a pre-mature stage and
such application can be filed when the trial commences, whereas
till date, neither charges have been framed nor trial has
commenced against the accused-respondent. Hence, under these
circumstances, the application submitted at the instance of the
accused-respondent, by his biological son, is pre-mature and not
maintainable and the same should not have been considered by
the Trial Court. However, inspite of the above, the same was
considered and allowed by the Trial Court by passing the
impugned order.
In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in the case of Johar
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
Mehmood Vs. U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 253.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel
appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent opposed the
prayer.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
5. When the instant matter was listed before this Court on the
last occasion i.e. 08.12.2025, this Court passed the following
interim order which reads as under:-
“1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition,
a challenge has been made to the impugned order
dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Dholpur by which the custody of the accused
Puran Singh has been handed over to his son on the
ground that the accused-Puran Singh is suffering from
severe dementia with behavioural problems leading to
severe cognitive impairment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
condition of the accused-Puran is not as such that he
could not face the trial. Hence, under these circum-
stances, interference of this Court is warranted.
3. Before proceeding further to decide the instant
matter, this Court deems it just and proper to quote
the relevant provisions with regard to the issue in-
volved in the instant petition. The provisions contained
under Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
deals with the accused-persons of unsound mind. Sec-
tion 329 therein reads as under:-
“329. Procedure in case of person of unsound
mind tried before Court.–(1) If at the trial of
any person before a Magistrate or Court of Ses-
sion, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that
such person is of unsound mind and conse-
quently 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 pro-
duced 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.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]1 [(1A) If during trial, the Magistrate or Court of
Sessions finds the accused to be of unsound
mind, he or it shall refer such person to a psy-
chiatrist or clinical psychologist for care and
treatment, and the psychiatrist or clinical psy-
chologist, as the case may be shall report to the
Magistrate or Court whether the accused is suf-
fering from unsoundness of mind:
Provided that if the accused is aggrieved by the
information given by the psychiatric or clinical
psychologist, as the case may be, to the Magis-
trate, he may prefer an appeal before the Medi-
cal Board which shall consist of–
(a) head of psychiatry unit in the nearest gov-
ernment hospital; and
(b) a faculty member in psychiatry in the near-
est medical college.]
2 [(2) If such Magistrate or Court is informed
that the person referred to in sub-section (1A) is
a person of unsound mind, the Magistrate or
Court shall further determine whether unsound-
ness of mind renders the accused incapable of
entering defence and if the accused is found so
incapable, the Magistrate or Court shall record a
finding to that effect and shall examine the
record of evidence produced by the prosecution
and after hearing the advocate of the accused
but without questioning the accused, if the Mag-
istrate or Court finds that no prima facie case is
made out against the accused, he or it shall, in-
stead of postponing the trial, discharge the ac-
cused and deal with him in the manner provided
under section 330:
Provided that if the Magistrate or Court finds
that a prima facie case is made out against the
accused in respect of whom a finding of un-
soundness of mind is arrived at, he shall post-
pone the trial for such period, as in the opinion
of the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, is re-
quired for the treatment of the accused.
(3) If the Magistrate or Court finds that a prima
facie case is made out against the accused and
he is incapable of entering defence by reason of(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]mental retardation, he or it shall not hold the
trial and order the accused to be dealt with in
accordance with section 330.]”
4. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly in-
dicating that the provisions deals with the procedure
in case, a person is found to be unsound mind before
the Court and before forming any opinion also as to
whether an accused is suffering from unsoundness of
mind or not or whether such accused is in a fit condi-
tion to face the trial or not, the learned Magistrate is
required to get the information/ opinion of a Psychia-
trist and Clinical Psychologist of a Medical Board,
which shall consist of the head of the psychiatry unit
from the nearest Government Hospital along-with a
Faculty Member of Psychiatry from the nearest Medi-
cal College.
5. Though a Medical Board has been constituted by
the orders passed by the Trial Court and the following
opinion has been given by the constituted Medical
Board, which reads as under:-
“Medical Board Examination Report of Shree
Pooran Singh S/o Chotelal Tyagi
Office Order-lkekU;/2024/886 fnukad 30/03/2024 of
PMO District Hospital Dholpur (Raj.)
Brought By- Shree Roop Singh (HC1262)
Above named was presented and assessed by
medical board members constituted by PMO
Dholpur through letter no as mentioned above on
01/04/2024 in Psychiatry OPD of district Hospital
Dholpur. He was assessed through Appropriated
available psychological tools. After detailed cur-
rent evaluation and examination of his post treat-
ment records. The Board is of the opinion that
Shree Pooran Singh’s current mental state exami-
nation is not found to be within normal limits and
found to be suffering from Severe Dementia Ä“ Be-
haviour problems leading to severe cognitive im-
pairment.
Mark of Identification – A Black Mole over (L) Side
Cheek”
6. Perusal of the aforesaid report, as furnished by the
Medical Board does not indicate that as to whether
the petitioner is not in a fit position to understand
the proceedings of the trial pending against him. Un-
less and until, a specific opinion is given by the Medi-
cal Board, the matter cannot proceed further against
the accused in accordance with law.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, a fresh
Medical Board is required to be constituted in terms
of Section 329 Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of S.M.S.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
Medical College, Hospital is directed to constitute a
Medical Board consisting of the Head of Psychiatry
Unit along-with a Faculty Member of Psychiatry and
thereafter, send his report and specify the mental
state of the accused-respondent after thorough ex-
amination and apprise this Court as to whether the
accused-respondent is mentally fit to understand and
participate in the Court proceedings.
8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Superintendent, S.M.S. Medical College, Hospital,
Jaipur for its compliance.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to in-
struct the concerned Investigating officer ask the ac-
cused-respondent to appear before the Medical
Board on 18.12.2025.
10. List the matter on 05.01.2026.”
6. While passing the aforesaid interim order, this Court was of
the view that the opinion given by the Medical Board constituted
at Dholpur was not clear and specific with regard to the mental
state and fitness of the accused-respondent. Therefore, directions
were issued for constitution of a fresh Medical Board in terms of
Section 329 Cr.P.C. The Superintendent, S.M.S. Medical College,
Hospital, Jaipur was directed to constitute a Medical Board
consisting of the Head of Psychiatry Unit along with a Faculty
Member of Psychiatry. Further directions were issued to send a
fresh report, specifying therein the mental state and fitness of the
accused-respondent, after his thorough examination, in order to
apprise this Court as to whether the accused-respondent is
mentally fit to understand and participate in the Court
proceedings, pending against him before the Trial Court.
7. In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order dated
08.12.2025, a Medical Board was constituted comprising of the
Senior Professor and Unit Head, Department of Psychiatry, SMS
Medical College and Superintendent, Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur as
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
Chairman, a Professor (Psychiatry Department), a Senior
Specialist (Psychiatry Department) and a Clinical Psychologist as
Members, who examined the accused-respondent and on the basis
of Serial and detailed Mental Status Examinations along with
previous history of the accused-respondent, the Medical Board
gave the following report on 18.12.2025, which reads as under:-
“PSYCHIATRIC CENTRE, JAIPUR
Medical Board Examination ReportBY ORDER: Øekad% ek-fp-@esfM-cksMZ@lkek-@2025/2749 fnukad% 18.12.2025
Subject: Psychiatric examination by board of Mr. Pu-
ran Singh S/O Mr. ChoteLal, 80 years old male,
R/O:- Gainda Lal Colony Agra, Uttar PradeshDate of Admission: 18-12-2025
Date of Discharge: 02.01.2026OPD NO. 181225278412376 IPD No. A/PSYCJP/
25/01292Reference :-
1- jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k
ua-&975@2025 esa tkjh vkns’k fnukad 05-12-2025 ,ao vkpk;Z ,oa
foHkkxk/;{k] QksjsfUld esfMdy foHkkx] lokbZ ekuaflg egkfo|ky;]
t;iqj ds i= Øekad @1062@,Q,e@25 fnukad & 16-12-2025 }
kjk vxzsf”kr i= dh vuq’kalk esa
Mark of Identification:-
1. A black mole left cheek over mandibular reason.
2. A black mole over medial end of right clavicle bone.
On the basis of history given by reliable infor-
mant (Mr. Ved Prakash Tyagi, Son) Serial and detailed
Mental Status Examinations, observation of behavior
in the ward, neurological opinion, geriatric psychiatrist
opinion and report of clinical psychologist (Psychologi-
cal evaluation no. 26/00380 & 26/00386 & 26/00390,
Dated: 01.01.2026), We the members of board are of
unanimous opinion that Mr. Puran Singh S/O Mr.
ChoteLal patient has dementia with BPSD (Behav-
ioral and psychological symptoms of dementia). Ow-
ing to the cognitive impairment he is unable to under-
stand and participate in the court proceedings. Con-
sidering the progressive nature of the disorder possi-
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
bility of improvement in his condition near future is
very bleak.”
8. Perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that four members
of the newly constituted Medical Board were of the unanimous
opinion that the accused-respondent-patient-Puran Singh has
dementia with BPSD (Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of
Dementia). They further opined that owing to his cognitive
impairment, the patient-Puran Singh would be unable to
understand and participate in the Court proceedings. Considering
the progressive nature of the disorder, it was found that the
possibility of improvement in his condition in near future is very
bleak.
9. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by the
counsel for the petitioner that the application submitted by son of
the accused-respondent was pre-mature and the same could not
be submitted prior to the commencement of the trial i.e. framing
of the charge. Once this fact is established on record in the form
of the opinion of Medical Board that the accused-respondent is
mentally unfit to face the trial on account of the disease suffered
by him, then waiting for the trial to reach at the stage of framing
of charge, would only be an empty formality.
10. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that at this stage, the accused-respondent is not in the
mental state to face trial and under such circumstances, he is
ordered to be released and his custody be handed over to his
biological son. This Court finds no error in the order impugned
passed by the Trial Court.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:20243] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-975/2025]
11. The Trial Court is directed to notify the Secretary, District
Legal Services Authority, Dholpur (DLSA) to ensure that the
petitioner would be produced before the Medical Board at SMS
Hospital, Jaipur every year in the second week of December for
examination of his mental fitness to face the trial and send the
report of such examination carried out by the Medical Board to the
Trial Court in a timely manner.
12. In case, the Medical Board opines that the mental condition
of the accused-respondent is fit to understand the Court
proceedings, then such report shall be submitted before the Trial
Court and thereafter, in case, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that on the basis of the report received from the
Medical Board, the accused-respondent seems to be of sound
mind and he is in a position to face trial, then appropriate orders
be passed for resumption of the proceedings against him, as per
the provisions contained under Section 331 Cr.P.C. and the trial
shall be concluded in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant
criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all
pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/21
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 02:34:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:22:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
