When accused appears to have been of sound mind
AI Assist
Summary
When the accused appears of sound mind at inquiry or trial but evidence shows he likely did an act which would be an offence if done while sane, and that at the time he was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong, the Magistrate must proceed with the case. If the offence requires trial by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate must commit the accused for trial there.
Example
Rohan is accused of injuring a neighbour. At the hearing he speaks coherently, but medical reports and witness statements indicate he was psychotic during the incident and did not know his act was wrong. The Magistrate proceeds with the case and, because the offence must be tried by the Sessions Court, commits Rohan to the Sessions Court for trial.
Bare Act
Enacted textWhen the accused appears to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial, and the Magistrate is satisfied from the evidence given before him that there is reason to believe that the accused committed an act, which, if he had been of sound mind, would have been an offence, and that he was, at the time when the act was committed, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the Magistrate shall proceed with the case, and, if the accused ought to be tried by the Court of Session, commit him for trial before the Court of Session.
Previous year papers
Pick your exam. we'll email the most recent paper.