The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has set aside an order refusing discharge to an accused whose medical records and doctors’ evidence indicated that he had mild intellectual disability and was unable to independently understand the consequences of his actions or defend himself.
Justice Mehroz K. Pathan delivered the judgment on September 24, 2026, in Criminal Revision Application No. 90 of 2026. The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the discharge application in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Background
The applicant was facing prosecution under Sections 323, 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, in connection with Crime No. 407/2023.
The applicant had sought discharge on the ground of mental incapacity. The trial court had earlier directed the Civil Surgeon, Bhandara, to examine him. A psychiatric assessment report dated April 12, 2024, recorded mild intellectual disability.
Three doctors were subsequently examined. The applicant argued that their evidence consistently showed that he could not understand the consequences of his actions or independently defend himself. The prosecution and the appointed counsel for the complainant, however, maintained that the doctors’ evidence did not establish a consistent opinion that he was of unsound mind.
Justice Pathan examined the psychiatric assessment report and the depositions of all three doctors. The Court found that the evidence was consistent on the applicant’s inability to understand the consequences of his actions and defend himself without assistance.
The Court observed:
“Perusal of testimonies of all three Doctors, who had examined the applicant, shows that there is consistent opinion of all three Doctors that the applicant was not able to understand the consequences of his act. The Doctors had also observed that the accused cannot defend himself independently on his own without anybody’s assistance.”
The High Court further held that the trial court had failed to properly consider the medical evidence and the procedure under Sections 329 and 330 Cr.P.C., which deal with proceedings involving a person who may be incapable of entering a defence because of unsoundness of mind.
The High Court found that the trial court’s conclusion about the absence of consistent medical evidence was contrary to the depositions of the three doctors. It therefore quashed and set aside the order dated August 4, 2025.
The matter was remanded to the trial court to determine whether sufficient material existed to proceed on the charge-sheet and thereafter deal with the accused under Section 330(3) Cr.P.C. The High Court directed that the discharge application be decided within two months from receipt of its order.
The revision application was accordingly allowed in these terms.
Case Details
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 90 of 2026
Judge: Justice Mehroz K. Pathan
Decision Date: September 24, 2026
