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.