Bombay HC asks sessions court to reconsider plea to close POCSO case against accused with mental incapacity

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed a sessions court order that had refused to discharge a 19-year-old accused in a POCSO case, despite medical evidence establishing his mental incapacity to face criminal trial.

Justice Mehroz K Pathan remanded the matter back to the Additional Sessions Court in Bhandara district of Maharashtra for fresh consideration.

The accused faced prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 

His lawyers filed a plea to discharge him from the case, claiming that he suffered from severe intellectual vulnerability. They argued that he could not comprehend his actions or instruct counsel. 

Medical tests, including a psychiatric assessment, revealed that the accused had an Intelligence Quotient below seventy and a mental age of approximately fourteen. 

Three doctors subsequently testified before the trial court confirming that the accused suffered from mild intellectual disability and was unfit to stand trial.

However, the additional sessions judge rejected the discharge plea in August 2025. The trial judge found the medical experts lacked a uniform opinion. 

A plea was then moved on behalf of the accused before the High Court, challenging this trial court decision.

In his September 24 order, Justice Pathan of the High Court rebuked the trial court's assessment.

“The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in its impugned order dated 04/08/2025 that there is no consistent opinion of all the doctors examined before the Court that the applicant is of unsound mind is perverse,” the High Court held.

The High Court was also critical of the sessions judge's failure to record whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused on merits as per the charge-sheet. The High Court underscored that a discharge application cannot be rejected mechanically.

“The Magistrate will have to therefore necessarily examine whether there is sufficient evidence in the charge-sheet to prosecute and frame the charge even against the accused who is of unsound mind and determine whether release of accused can be ordered as per Section 330 of CrPC. That exercise is not undertaken by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order,” the High Court found.

It, therefore, remanded the matter back to the sessions court for reconsideration of the discharge plea.

The sessions judge was directed to decide the discharge application within two months.

[Read Order]