The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court’s order discharging a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, highlighting the need for strict compliance with the procedures laid down under Chapter XXV of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), particularly Section 330(3).
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that while individuals with mental illness may not bear conventional criminal liability, releasing them into society without appropriate supervision or judicial evaluation can pose risks both to themselves and to others.
“The law recognises that such persons, though not criminally liable in the traditional sense, may still be a threat if not placed under suitable care,” the Court stated.
Background
The State had appealed against a trial court order that discharged an accused diagnosed with severe mental retardation in a case involving sexual assault on a minor. The trial court had accepted a medical report declaring the accused incapable of understanding the act or defending himself and discharged him after accepting a surety bond of ₹10,000 from his father.
Representing the State, APP Naresh Kumar Chahar argued that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Sections 328, 329, and 330 of the CrPC.
On the other hand, Advocate Arpit Srivastava, appearing for the accused, maintained that the trial court had acted in accordance with Section 328 by ordering a medical evaluation and that no interference was warranted.
Key Observations
The central issue before the High Court was whether the trial court had followed the due procedure prescribed for assessing mental incapacity and ordering the discharge.
The bench underlined the distinction between unsoundness of mind and mental retardation, clarifying that while the former refers to mental illnesses that may be episodic and responsive to treatment, the latter is a developmental condition characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.
The court emphasized that Section 84 of the IPC, which deals with criminal responsibility of persons of unsound mind, does not explicitly extend to mental retardation.
Justice Sharma pointed out that Section 330(3) CrPC provides for a judicial determination—based on medical advice—on whether the accused requires institutional care or can be released with sufficient safeguards. In the present case, the trial court had failed to conduct such an assessment and proceeded to discharge the accused without analyzing the nature of the offence or consulting medical experts on the implications of his release.
“A blind discharge without informed judicial assessment violates statutory safeguards and endangers both the accused and the public,” the bench observed.
Conclusion
Terming the discharge order legally unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 330(3) CrPC, the High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.
“If courts ignore these statutory obligations, it not only results in procedural irregularities but also creates a legal vacuum where neither the rights of the mentally disabled nor public safety are protected,” the Court cautioned.
Case Title: State v. Neeraj (2025:DHC:4233)
For State: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar
For Accused: Advocate Arpit Srivastava