The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 intends to give a mechanism for smoother delivery of justice. Since CrPC deals with the arrest and trial of the person, it is very see this necessary that fairness should be there to establish the lawful detainment of a person from his liberty.
When a person is unable to understand things, he is said to be of unsound mind. Idiocy, madness, alcoholism, and mental degeneration are all examples of unsoundness. According to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “Nothing constitutes an offence done by a person who, at the time of committing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of comprehending the nature of the conduct, or that he is doing what is either improper or contrary to law”.
In other words, an act committed by a person of unsound mind is not considered an offence and falls under the category of ‘General Exceptions’. Here, the caring attitude towards people who are mentally ill is maintained.
Section 329– procedure where a person of unsound mind is tried before the court
According to Section 329 of the Act, if the magistrate believes the person being tried is of sound mind and incapable of self-defence, the magistrate ensures this by having the subject evaluated by a medical professional. If the defendant is unable to defend himself, the magistrate will hear the prosecution and examine the records. The magistrate shall record such a determination and postpone the hearing based on medical evidence.
The fact of insanity throughout the trial will be considered part of the proceedings.
In the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2011), it was stated that since Section 329 of CrPC relates to the trial of a person of unsound mind and that the application has been filed during the trial Section 329 of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable.
Section 330- release of a person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial
According to Section 330 of the Act, If the person is found unsound or incapable of making his defence during the inquiry and trial (Sections 328 and 329), regardless of whether the offence is bailable or not, the Court may release him. In other words, if the offence is non bailable, the magistrate must grant bail as well. If, on the other hand, bail cannot be granted, the accused must be kept in a location where he can receive treatment.
In the case of Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. (2018), the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that a doctor at the mental hospital in Varanasi had opined that he was an accused of unsound mind, and ordered that the accused be sent under a detention warrant to the mental hospital in Varanasi, where the accused-applicant was being treated, as noted in his decision. He opined that there was no good reason to release the applicant on bail, and he denied the applicant’s bail application under Section 330 of the CrPC.
Section 331- resumption of inquiry or trial
According to Section 331 of the Act, when the inquiry and trial are postponed or suspended, the magistrate shall summon the person after he or she regains mental soundness or ceases to be insane and resume the inquiry and trial.
In the case of Subhash Bhardwaj v. State (2016), the Court concluded that the trial will be scheduled after the trial court receives the IHBAS report and completes its investigation pursuant to Section 331 CrPC.
Section 332- procedure of accused appearing before the magistrate or the court
According to Section 332 of the Act, If the accused appears before the magistrate and the court believes he is capable of presenting his defence, the investigation and trial will continue.
If the person is still unable to recover from his condition, the provisions of Section 330 will apply once more.
In the case of Geeg Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2008), the Court said that the trial will continue as the accused is capable of presenting his defence.
Section 333- when accused appears to have been of sound mind
According to Section 333 of the Act, when the magistrate has reason to believe the individual is of sound mind and there is also evidence that acts were committed by the accused, when the act was committed by the accused, and when the act was committed while the accused was of sound mind. The magistrate will then proceed with the case.
In the case of Dimple @ Dimpu @ Gurcharan v. State of Punjab (2008), the court stated that the petitioner is opined to be suffering from that form of insanity at the time of the commission of the offence which may render him incapable of knowing the nature and quality of his act when he committed the same, so Section 333 comes into play.
Section 334- judgement of acquittal of the accused on the ground of unsoundness of mind
According to Section 334 of the Act, if a person is acquitted on the grounds of insanity and is unable to identify the nature of the act, the findings must state whether the act was committed by the accused or not.
In the case of Abdul Latif v. The State of Assam (1981), the Court came to the conclusion that the accused was incompetent to know the nature of the act or that he was doing something that was either illegal or against the law at the critical moment. As a result, they overturned the convictions and punishments, accepted the plea of insanity, granted the appeal, and found the appellant not guilty.
Site Title 
Leave a comment