In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has set aside a life imprisonment sentence in an over-a-decade-old murder case and mandated a completely fresh trial. The court found the original trial legally flawed because the sessions court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the accused's claim of unsoundness of mind before proceeding.
Court Finds Trial "Vitiated", Orders Trial De Novo
The bench of Justices I R Vora and R T Vachhani quashed the conviction and ordered a trial de novo – a new trial starting from the stage of framing charges. The court held that the trial was "vitiated" due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section requires a court to first investigate whether an accused is fit to stand trial if a question of their insanity is raised.
Following this order, the accused, Mahendra Jadhav, was granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000. He had been incarcerated for over 11 years since his arrest in 2011.
Case Background: Murder and a Missed Medical Inquiry
Jadhav was arrested for the alleged murder of his father-in-law, Meghram, and for attacking Meghram's brother in 2011. A year later, in 2012, a city sessions court in Ahmedabad convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
However, even before the trial began, Jadhav's brother had informed the court that Jadhav was of unsound mind and was under medication. The court was also provided with a 2010 clinical opinion from an Ahmedabad mental hospital, which stated Jadhav was suffering from a mental disorder, was uncooperative during assessment, and had a dysphoric mood with negative thoughts.
Acting on this, the trial court had indeed invoked Section 329 CrPC and ordered a medical examination of Jadhav at the mental hospital. The process was initiated through the jail authorities. Despite this, the trial court commenced and concluded the trial without ever receiving or awaiting the conclusion of this inquiry into Jadhav's mental illness.
High Court's Scathing Observation on Legal Failure
Challenging the conviction in the High Court, Jadhav's lawyers argued the trial itself was illegal. The Gujarat HC agreed, noting a critical failure in due process.
"The trial court failed to make an inquiry as mandated under Section 329 CrPC and did not record a finding with respect to the insanity of the appellant-accused," the High Court stated. It emphasized that considering the peculiar facts, the trial was invalidated by this non-compliance with mandatory procedure, making the conviction and sentence unsustainable in law.
Implications and the Road Ahead
The ruling underscores the paramount importance of procedural safeguards in criminal jurisprudence, especially when the mental capacity of an accused is in question. The High Court's decision resets the clock on the legal proceedings, granting Jadhav a chance for a trial that adheres to all legal requirements.
The case will now go back to the sessions court, which must begin the process afresh from the charge-framing stage, this time ensuring a conclusive inquiry into the accused's mental state at the time of the trial as per law.
