The Kerala High Court recently held that low intelligence quotient (IQ) or an intellectual disability alone is not enough to declare that an accused is incapable of defending themselves before a court or unfit to stand trial.[Kamal Raj v State of Kerala]
Justice Jobin Sebastian explained that Section 368 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) lays down the procedure to be followed in case a person of unsound mind is tried before court.
Under this provision, courts are required to enquire into the accused person's mental condition, their capacity to defend themselves and to postpone criminal proceedings if they are found incapable of making their defence.
The Court stated that the important issue to be considered is whether the mental condition or disability prevents the accused from understanding the nature of the proceedings, whether they can understand the questions put to them and communicate the necessary facts and instructions to their lawyer.
"The mere presence of an intellectual disability or a low IQ, by itself, will not make a person incapacitated to stand trial," the Court said.
The September 29 ruling came on a petition filed by a 20-year-old accused in a case a pending before a Punalur special court under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Raj claimed that he had an intellectual disability which made him incapable of defending himself and sought postponement of trial under Section 368 of the BNSS.
The trial court conducted an inquiry into his claim and found that he was fit to stand trial.
Raj then approached the High Court challenging the trial court's finding.
His counsel argued that the trial court had not properly considered the medical evidence. In particular, he pointed to a medical board report which recorded Raj's IQ as 35 and another medical assessment which stated that his social age was only 10 years.
It was also pointed out that Raj had faced development difficulty since childhood and had required assistance throughout his schooling, including the use of a scribe during examinations.
However, the medical moard which examined Raj had found that despite his intellectual disability, he could understand the allegations made against him and the nature of the court proceedings as well as comprehend and respond to the questions posed to him.
Taking note of the medical board's report, the Court held that Raj was capable to participate in the criminal proceedings and upheld the trial courts finding that he was fit to stand trial.
"Therefore, the existence of an intellectual disability has to be considered in the context of the actual functional capacity of the accused to understand and participate in the proceedings. If the mere existence of intellectual disability or a low IQ were sufficient to render an accused incapable of standing trial, every person suffering from such disability would, irrespective of the degree of functional capacity possessed by him, be excluded from criminal proceedings," the Court stated while dismissing the revision petition.
Advocates Harikrishnan MS, Shakthi Prakash and K Dhruv Kumar represented Raj.
Public Prosecutor VR Ramlal appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]