An investigative officer is the first stake holder of the criminal justice system who is responsible to bring each and every fact of the crime and to bring accused before the court of law.  Sec- 328,Cr.P.C. emphasis on the inquiry of unsoundness of mind of an accused that believe to be suffering from any mental illness and a magistrate immediately directs prosecution for the a medical examination. If Magistrate is convinced that the person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, he shall postpone proceedings and referred the accused to the hospital for the treatment. Section- 100 to 105 of Mental Health Care Act, 2017 also laid down procedures to deal with mentally ill people who come in contact with law.  However, it is found that investigative officers are either not aware of these criminal procedures or showing negligence towards it. Few cases of insanity were cometo notice by the Hon’ble High Courts where investigative officer’s negligence resulted into miscarriage of judgments by lower courts. In this research article authors discussed few cases where Court has found lacuna’s in investigative process and by setting past judgments aside deliver fresh judgment in the favour of an insane defendant. Researcher also explores the issue of human right violation by the criminal justice system itself. In conclusion some deliberations are made to eliminate such issues from criminal justice system.

Unsoundness of mind, investigation, mental illness

Mental Health Care Act.2017. Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi.

Gaur J. R. and Tripathi, M. A. “Insanity, mental trauma, crime and the law”, International Journal of Management and Social Science Research Review, 8, I2, (2021).

Tripathi, M. A. and Tripathi, A. K. Paradigm Shift in Indian Legislature with Reference to Criminal Responsibility of an Unsound Mind, "Pragyaan: Journal of Law" 10, 1, (2020).

AIR 1970 All 51, 1970 CriLJ 132.

Prins S.J. and L. Draper. 2009. Improving Outcomes for People with Mental Illness Under Community Corrections Supervision: A Guide to Research Informed Policy and Practice.

AIR 1966 SC 1631) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.474 OF 2019.

Gujarat vsManjuben, Gujarat High Court, March 18,2019,Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/ on 21st May,2020.

The Indian Evidence Act 1872 Chapter-VII.

Live Law News 15 Jun 2021.

https://hindi.livelaw.in/category/top-stories/kerala-high-court-acquits-accused-in-a-triple-murder-case-for-failure-of-investigation-officer-to-ascertain-mental-stability-175738, Accessed on 12 Aug-2021.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/71512849.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Accessed on 13Aug-2021.

United Nations.Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: United Nations; 2006.

Kelly B. D. (2016). Mental health, mental illness, and human rights in India and elsewhere: What are we aiming for?. Indian journal of psychiatry, 58(Suppl 2), S168–S174. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.196822.

Therapeutic jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary method of legal scholarship that aims to reform the law in order to positively impact the psychological well-being of the accused person. In 1990, law professors David Wexler and Bruce Winick coined the term “therapeutic jurisprudence” to acknowledge the sociopsychological consequences of any legal action and that these consequences can be impacted by the interpretation of substantive legal rules and procedures. See, Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Law as a Therapeutic Agent by David Wexler (1990).