Jaspal Singh vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010040392025
+ CRL.A. 129/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3181/2025
JASPAL SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with son of the appellant.

versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Avaneesh Kumar, PS Krishna
Nagar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), the sole accused in Sessions
Case No. 464/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-
06/Special Judge (POCSO Act), East District, Karkardooma Court,
Delhi assails the judgment dated 14.10.2022 whereby he has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 1

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the
PoCSO Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 15.07.2013, the accused
passed obscene comments and sexually assaulted the prosecutrix
by hitting her on the chest/breast. The trial court, vide order dated
01.07.2016, framed a Charge for the offence punishable under
Section 10 of the PoCSO Act against the appellant/accused, to
which he pleaded not guilty.
3. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 14.10.2022, held the accused guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act and hence
convicted him accordingly. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been
filed.
4. Along with the appeal, Crl.M.A.3181/2025 under Section
528 of the BNSS seeking stay of conviction of the appellant and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 2

Crl.M.A.3183/2025 under Section 432 read with Section 528 of
the BNSS, seeking permission to lead additional evidence
concerning the medical condition of the appellant have been filed.
The second application is seen allowed as per order dated
10.09.2025.
5. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused submitted that the
appellant was mentally unsound at the time of commission of the
offence. It was submitted that, despite the availability of medical
records indicating the appellant’s mental illness, this aspect was
never raised by the counsel who represented the appellant before
the trial court. As the appellant was tried when he was not fit to
stand trial, the conviction is liable to be set aside. The trial court is
to be directed to permit the appellant to adduce evidence to
substantiate his defence under Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (the IPC).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 3

6. On going through the records it is seen that after the
impugned judgment was pronounced on 14.10.2022, the trial court
issued production warrant for the production of the accused before
the Court for the purpose of sentencing. The Jail Superintendent
concerned apprised the trial court that the appellant is not mentally
fit and is suffering from dementia. The trial court directed the
accused to be examined at the Institute of Human Behaviour and
Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Delhi, which recommended
hospitalisation for proper assessment. Consequently, a Medical
Board was constituted, which opined that the accused was
suffering from dementia with Behavioural and Psychological
Symptoms (BPSD), along with Cerebral Atrophy. Thereafter, vide
order dated 08.05.2023, the trial court concluded that the appellant
is suffering from severe global cognitive impairment and is also
suffering from cerebral atrophy and that, due to his mental
condition, the accused is unable to effectively defend himself.
Finding so, the trial court held that the proceedings against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 4

accused is liable to be postponed. The relevant portion of the said
order reads thus:-
“23. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that accused is
unable to make his defence and therefore the proceedings against
the accused is liable to be postponed. In the present case, the
accused is in custody and further consequential order shall be
passed in terms of section 330 (3) CrPC.
24. Let close relative or the person who is taking care of the
accused appear on next date of hearing and indicate at which
place the accused shall be kept and what steps would be taken by
him to ensure that accused does not cause harm either to himself
or any other person.”

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.), corresponding to Chapter XXVII BNSS, deals
with the provisions relating to accused persons of unsound mind.
Section 329 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 368 BNSS, deals
with the procedure to be followed if an accused is found to be of
unsound mind. A reading of the order dated 08.05.2023 of the trial
court makes it clear that the procedure contemplated under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 5

329 Cr.P.C. has been followed by the learned trial Judge. The said
order also states that consequential orders in terms of Sub-Section
(3) of Section 330 Cr.P.C. would be passed. It was submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant that an application has already
been moved before the trial court for placing on record materials to
show that the appellants/accused was incapable of understanding
the consequences of his act at the time of the alleged incident and
that the same is still pending consideration. As the trial court has
rightly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 329
Cr.P.C. (368 BNSS), the trial court is at liberty to proceed to
complete the formalities contemplated under Section 330(3)
Cr.P.C.
8. Admittedly, the present appeal has been preferred before
the appellant/accused has been sentenced. As per Sub-Section (2)
to Section 374 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 415 BNSS, any
person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an
Additional Sessions Judge in which a sentence of imprisonment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 6

for more than 7 years has been passed against him or against any
other person convicted at the same trial, can appeal to the High
Court. It is only when the sentence also is pronounced, the
judgment becomes complete. This is clear from a reading of the
provisions contained in Chapter XXVII Cr.P.C. It is only when the
sentence is awarded the judgment becomes complete and can be
appealed against. (See Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1995)
2 SCC 513 ).
9. When this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned
counsel for the appellant, it was submitted that she may be
permitted to withdraw the appeal as per instructions received from
the son of the appellant with liberty to file an appeal at the
appropriate stage.
10. In light of the submissions made, the appeal is dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal at the appropriate stage.
The trial court can complete the formalities contemplated under
Section 330(3) Cr.P.C. if not already completed. Thereafter, in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 7

event of resumption of the trial as contemplated under Sections
331 and 332 Cr.P.C., the trial court shall afford an opportunity to
the appellant/accused to establish whether he was incapable of
understanding the consequences of his act at the time of the
commission of the offence.
11. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
mj
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:30:53
CRL.A. 129/2025 Page 8