Delhi court acquits a man with schizophrenia who sexually assaulted a minor – Henry’s Club

A Delhi court has acquitted a 45-year-old man accused of sexually abusing a six-year-old boy, saying he suffers from mental illness and is unable to understand the consequences of his acts.

Additional Sessions Judge Ashutosh Kumar discharged the accused in an order passed on December 15. The victim’s mother had leveled allegations of sexual harassment against her. Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against the accused in this case under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

“It appears prima facie from the said medical documents of the accused that the accused was suffering from mental illness to such an extent that he was unable to understand the consequences of his acts or to make any attempt with sexual intent. was unable. Time of commission of the offence. ,

The court observed that even though it is held to argue that it is suspected that the accused was not sufficiently incompetent to understand the consequences of his act and that there exists a doubt against him that he was unable to understand the consequences of his act. was capable. “Look, no charge can be framed against the accused, as it is well settled that there must be serious or strong suspicion against the accused for framing of charge.”

Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir relied on the discharge summary slip of the accused and argued that he was diagnosed as a patient of schizophrenia. Mir had also drawn the court’s attention to an AIIMS report, where his condition was observed as a serious disability, and said the opinion reports of three medical boards had come to the same conclusion.

Mir also argued that the medical report was a part of the charge sheet after verification by the investigating agency.


Mir told the court, “It is clear that the accused was of unsound mind and was not of mental state or of improving mental state to understand the consequence of the alleged act.”

The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the state, argued that “medical insanity was distinct from legal insanity and in the absence of any legal insanity, the charges should be taken at face value.”

,