Criminal justice system mustn’t worsen pain of mentally distressed: HC | Dehradun News

1762549804 untitled design 25.jpg


Criminal justice system mustn’t worsen pain of mentally distressed: HC

Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court (HC) has overturned the conviction of a govt employee from Haridwar district in an attempted suicide case, observing that “although his sentence was minor, the stigma of conviction had caused significant prejudice, impacting both his career and mental health”.A single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit, while emphasising that “the criminal justice system must not add to the suffering of those already under mental distress”, quashed the lower court’s judgment against Kiran Kumar (name chamged), a Nagar Palika Parishad employee in Manglaur. He had been convicted under IPC section 309 after two police constables restrained him on Feb 21, 2011, at his workplace when he had poured kerosene on himself while holding a matchbox.The court noted the legislative intent of section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, which presumes that anyone attempting suicide is under severe stress and should not be tried or punished under section 309 unless proven otherwise. “This reflects a shift from punitive measures to a more compassionate approach recognising suicide attempts as expressions of mental distress. The lower courts were duty bound to consider this legal position, but failed to do so,” the bench said.According to the HC, both the trial and appellate courts had “mechanically” proceeded without distinguishing between preparation and attempt or considering the incident’s context. “(The man) consistently claimed he had been subjected to workplace harassment and severe stress due to pressure from superiors over his complaints against them. These circumstances lend credibility to his defense and, at minimum, raise reasonable doubt regarding the necessary ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind; refers to the defendant’s state of mind) for section 309. The trial courts overlooked this crucial aspect, committing a manifest error in convicting the revisionist,” the court said.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *