Special Circumstances where the Criminal Proceedings are Dropped

Charanjit Singh and Ors vs. State

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner:Charanjit Singh and Ors
Respondent: State
Citation: 2005 IV AD (DELHI) 373
Court:In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: DK Jain and AK Sikri

This is a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the National Human Rights Commission on behalf of under trial Charanjit Singh who was suffering from schizophrenia.

Facts

Charanjit Singh was charged with the murder of Ashok Malhotra. However before the trial against him could begin, Charanjit was found to be suffering from schizophrenia. Since he was of unsound mind, he was incapable of defending himself so the trial against him could not proceed. He languished in jail for almost 17 years with his mental condition steadily deteriorating without receiving any medical treatment and without any progress with his trial.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took up his case with the jail authorities to speed up the court case. This was reported in the media on the basis of which in 2002 a Criminal Writ Petition was filed on his behalf in the Delhi High Court seeking, that the trial against him should be expedited and that in the meanwhile he should receive appropriate medical treatment.

In 2004, a second Writ Petition was filed by the NHRC seeking that the proceedings against him should be dropped.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that there was no provision in law for abatement of a criminal trial where the accused becomes insane while a trial against him is pending. The Court also observed that the medical condition of Charanjit was such that he might not be cured at all. However, the Court observed that he could not be treated as an under trial for the rest of his life without the possibility of an honourable acquittal.

The Court observed that keeping the proceedings suspended would be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees not only the right to life but also the right to live with dignity and hence ordered that the proceedings against him be dropped.

The High Court also clarified that the criminal proceedings were not being dropped only because of passage of time but because an exceptional situation had arisen where the trial had not begun and was unlikely to begin at all, even in future. The Court also issued certain directions for his medical treatment and care after release from jail.

The Delhi Government and the NHRC had filed affidavits before the Court with suggestions and guidelines as to how such situations should be dealt with. The Court directed the Government of Delhi to frame a scheme to deal with other similar cases and to incorporate the Guidelines suggested by the NHRC in this regard.

The Court also directed that a copy of the Court order should be sent to the Delhi Judicial Academy for organizing short term courses to sensitize the Judges dealing with such cases and to other Judges for passing appropriate orders in similar cases pending before them.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India
  • sections 329, 330, 332 and 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Cases Referred:

  • National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh; (1196) 1 SCC 742
  • P Ramachandra vs. State of Karnataka; 2002 (4) SCC 578
  • Rama Murthy vs. State of Karnataka (1997) 2 SCC
  • Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India and anr; (1992) 4 SCC 653
  • Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar (1982) 2 SCC 583
  • Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh and anr vs. State of Gujarat and other; (2004) 4 SCC 158