Intellectual disability alone does not render an accused incapable of making a defence.

The revision petitioner, the sole accused in S.C. No. 314 of 2025, contended that intellectual disability rendered him incapable of making his defence and that proceedings should therefore be postponed under Section 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Following psychiatric evaluation, a Medical Board assessed the petitioner and reported both developmental and adaptive difficulties and a low IQ, but also found that he could understand the allegations and proceedings, answer questions coherently, and communicate relevant information to his advocate.

The trial court, after enquiry, found him capable of making his defence and fit to stand trial. He challenged that order in revision, alleging that the court had failed to properly assess the medical evidence.

Whether the petitioner’s intellectual disability and reported low IQ rendered him incapable of making his defence under Section 368 of the BNSS

Whether the trial court’s finding that the petitioner was fit to stand trial, based on the medical reports and his functional capacity, warranted interference in revision

Section 368 of the BNSS requires an enquiry into an accused’s mental condition and capacity to make a defence; if the accused is found incapable, further proceedings are to be postponed in accordance with law.

The relevant test is functional: whether the accused can understand the nature and substance of the proceedings, comprehend the accusation, answer questions relevantly and coherently, and communicate relevant facts and instructions to counsel.

Intellectual disability, low IQ, poor academic performance, or a lower social age does not, by itself, establish incapacity to stand trial.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court held that the Medical Board’s findings directly addressed the petitioner’s functional capacity: he could understand the allegations and proceedings, comprehend and answer questions coherently, and communicate information relevant to his defence to counsel.

Although the reports recorded developmental difficulties and intellectual disability, those matters did not establish incapacity under the statutory test. The trial court had conducted the Section 368 enquiry and considered the medical reports and the petitioner’s functional abilities; accordingly, its finding involved no demonstrated error warranting revision.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed.