Remanded

Jose, v. the District Medical Officer

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/1466/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court deferred the trial to resolve a conflict in medical expert opinions regarding the accused's fitness to stand trial, directing further enquiry and institutional treatment consideration under Section 329 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Trial deferred for six weeks; Sessions Court directed to decide on fitness to stand trial under Section 329(2) Cr.P.C. and consider institutional treatment.

Jose, Vs the District Medical Officer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1466 OF 2021(G)

PETITIONER:

JOSE,

AGED 74 YEARS

S/O. PYLOTH, KANDAMKULATHIL HOUSE, ALOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 683.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THRISSUR O/O THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 680 005.

¶13

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 307.

¶14

3 ADDL R3 SHEELA JOSEPH AGED 55 YEARS SHEELA JOSEPH, W/O.M.O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT MALAPPAN HOUSE, SHA ROAD, CHALAKKUDY P.O., PIN-680 307 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04-03-21 IN IA 1/21.

¶15

R1-2 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR R3 BY ADV. KUM.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL) R3 BY ADV. SHRI.S.RAJEEV

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)NO.1466 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of March 2021

¶21

The prayer in this writ petition is to constitute a Medical Board under Section 329(1A) of Cr.P.C. and to obtain a report regarding the mental status of the petitioner's son Laijo Jose, before proceeding with the trial in S.C.No.256/2019 pending on the files of District and Sessions Court, Thrissur.

¶22

The short facts are that the petitioner's son is the accused in S.C No.256/2019, wherein he is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The petitioner’s son is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and going by his current mental condition, Laijo Jose is not fit to stand trial. On this submission being made before the trial court, Laijo Jose was referred to the Government Mental Health Centre and after subjecting him to treatment and

¶23

W.P.(C)NO.1466 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

examination, Ext.P3 report was submitted to the court stating that he is not fit to stand trial and need further treatment to improve his situation. On receipt of the report, the Doctor, who issued Ext.P3 report, was examined and thereafter, Ext.P5 order was passed giving custody of Laijo Jose to the petitioner. It was also directed to get the accused examined by the Medical Board at the Mental Health Centre, Thrissur and to produce the report regarding his mental condition on 23.11.2020.

¶26

As per the direction, a Medical Board was constituted, the accused examined and report submitted to the court. The Senior Consultant Psychiatry, who was a member of the Medical Board, on being examined in court, testified that the accused is fit to stand trial. Based on the report of the Medical Board and the testimony of the doctor, the trial court listed the case for framing of charges to

¶27

W.P.(C)NO.1466 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

15.01.2021. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 appeal under Section 329 (1A) of Cr.P.C and thereafter filed this writ petition, contending that the trial court had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 239 Cr.P.C and that, conduct of trial would cause serious prejudice to the accused in his defence.

¶30

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, the petitioner's son was referred to the Medical Board. The report of the Medical Board dated 23.02.2021 is made available by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Reading of the report shows that the Medical Board found the accused to be unfit to stand trial at present and has recommended to provide inpatient treatment and care to him.

¶31

The sequence of events and the reports

¶32

W.P.(C)NO.1466 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

reveals difference of opinion among the experts about the mental condition of the petitioner's son. In such circumstances it is for the trial court to take a decision in the matter based on the medical reports and after conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Section 329(2) of Cr.P.C. For facilitating such enquiry, the trial in S.C. No.256/2019 shall be deferred by a period of six weeks. The necessity for institutionalized treatment of the petitioner's son shall also be considered. A copy of the report of the Medical Board dated 23.02.2021 shall be made available to the Sessions Court through the Public Prosecutor concerned.

¶35

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/08.03.2021

W.P.(C)NO.1466 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 410/2018 OF CHALAKUDI POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF TREATMENT RECORDS OF LAIJO. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT SUBMITTED BY DR. DAYA PASCAL DATED 5.10/2020. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DR. DAYA PASCAL DATED 20/10/2020. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M. P. NO. 1869/2020 IN SC NO. 256/2019 DATED 23/10/2020. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION MADE BY DR. THOMAS DATED 18/12/2020. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERS TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, DATED 13.01.2021.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶46

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

Jose, v. the District Medical Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose, v. the District Medical Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Vs State of Keral

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Tijo Mathew Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Lolac Jimmy Vs State of Kerala

Jaison Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash.C @ Moonga Abhilash Vs State of Kerala