S. 368 BNSS | Low IQ Or Intellectual Disability By Itself Doesn't Render Accused Unfit For Trial: Kerala High Court
The Court dismissed a revision petition by POCSO accused with intellectual disability, and upheld the trial court's finding of fitness based on Medical Board opinion that he can understand allegations and instruct counsel.
Justice Jobin Sebastian, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the mere fact that an accused has a low IQ or suffers from intellectual disability does not, by itself, make him incapable of making his defence or unfit to stand trial. Under Section 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the test is whether the disability is of such a nature as to render the accused incapable of entering upon his defence, judged by his actual functional capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings.
Dismissing the revision petition, the Court upheld the Fast Track Special Court's finding that the 20-year-old accused is fit to stand trial. It noted that the Medical Board had specifically recorded that he understands the allegations, can communicate relevant information to his counsel and understands the nature and purpose of the proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, “…the mere fact that an accused has a low IQ or suffers from intellectual disability does not, by itself, render him incapable of making his defence or unfit to stand trial. The statutory test is whether the disability or mental condition is of such a nature as to render the accused incapable of entering upon his defence. Therefore, the existence of an intellectual disability has to be considered in the context of the actual functional capacity of the accused to understand and participate in the proceedings. If the mere existence of intellectual disability or a low IQ were sufficient to render an accused incapable of standing trial, every person suffering from such disability would, irrespective of the degree of functional capacity possessed by him, be excluded from criminal proceedings”.
Advocate Harikrishnan M.S. appeared for the petitioner, and V.R. Ramlal, Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner was the sole accused in the matter before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act Cases), Punalur. He contended that his intellectual disability made him incapable of making his defence and that proceedings should be postponed.
The trial court postponed proceedings and referred him to a psychiatrist at the District Hospital, Kollam, who opined he was fit to stand trial. The accused appealed to a Medical Board of the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, which evaluated him as an in-patient from May 18 to 28, 2026. Its report of June 5, 2026 also found him fit. By order dated August 21, 2026, the trial court held him capable of making his defence. He challenged that finding in revision.
The petitioner argued that the Board's own findings, including an IQ of 35 and a social age of ten years, were inconsistent with its opinion. The Court held that the inquiry under Section 368 is not whether the accused has a low IQ or lower social age, but whether he can understand the proceedings and the accusation, answer questions coherently and instruct his advocate. It observed that if disability alone sufficed, every person with such disability would be excluded from criminal proceedings regardless of functional capacity.
The Board's findings, it held, directly addressed that capacity, and the trial court had applied its mind to the medical evidence.
Cause Title: Kamal Raj v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:75844)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Harikrishnan M.S., Shakthi Prakash and K. Dhruv Kumar.
Respondent: V.R. Ramlal, Public Prosecutor.