“…Section 224(3) however, reads- “The trial of the issue as to whether or not the accused person is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence shall, if the finding is that he is of sound mind and capable of making his defence, be deemed to be part of his trial before the Court.” (underline supplied). In our view, this Subsection envisages that if the trial is to continue there ought to be a specific finding on an investigation under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Act if such an investigation was in fact made. This view is reinforced by the fact that if the trial had been before a judge and jury, it would have been necessary for the jury to make a finding on the facts given in the course of such investigation before the trial continued. Sections 223 and 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act have really not made any specific and/or detailed provisions for the procedure to be adopted by a Court in the course of such investigations but Section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Act proves as follows:- “The procedure and practice for the time being in force of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England in criminal trials shall apply to trials in the High Court in so far as this Act has not specifically made provision therefor.” In England, the issue whether an accused person is fit to plead or take his trial is an issue upon which a final decision must be given by the jury; and if a jury trying such an issue is unable to reach an agreement a fresh jury must be impanelled to decide the issue before trial should proceed or continue. In Darkhu, the accused was charged with wounding with intent to murder. Before his plea was taken a jury was sworn to determine whether he was fit to plead and evidence was given that he was suffering from paranoic schizophrenia. On this issue the jury disagreed and the question arose whether a further jury should be sworn to return a verdict on the issue or, whether, the evidence having failed to satisfy the jury of the accused’s insanity, the Court should proceed to trial of the charge contained in the indictment. Finnemore, J., held (accepting the submission by learned counsel for the Crown) that the issue was one on which a final decision must be made; he then discharged the jury and impanelled a new one-see (Practice Note); Regina v. Darkhu [1956]. 1 W.L.R. 989. We think the decision of Finnemore, J., in Darkhu represents the correct practice in England (See also Byrne, J., in Reg. v. Beynon [1957] 2 W.L.R. 956).”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
