Person Of Unsound Mind Not Incompetent To Testify Unless Unable To Understand Questions Or Give Rational Answers: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court, which had convicted him for the offence of rape and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, while affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, observed: “a lunatic or a person of unsound mind also is not incompetent to testify unless, due to lunacy or because of unsound mind, he is prevented by lunacy or unsound mind to understand the questions put to him or of giving rational answers to the questions.”

Background

The prosecution's case was that two accused persons had sexually assaulted a partially handicapped minor girl at different locations over a period of three months before the registration of the case. The crime was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Before the commencement of the trial, one of the accused died, and the trial proceeded against the surviving accused. During the trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and produced documentary and material evidence. The Sessions Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of rape and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with payment of a fine.

The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court, contending that the victim was mentally challenged and that the investigating officer had failed to ascertain her mental condition while recording her statement. It was argued that the absence of such verification vitiated the prosecution's case.

Court’s Observations

The High Court examined the statutory provisions governing the competency of witnesses. The Court noted that Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act declares that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender age, extreme old age, bodily or mental disease, or similar causes.

The Court further observed that the explanation to Section 118 clarifies that a person suffering from mental illness is not automatically rendered incompetent to testify unless the condition prevents the person from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers.

Referring to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Court observed that Section 124 contains a similar formulation, the only difference being that the expression “lunatic” used in the earlier statute has been replaced with the phrase “person of unsound mind”.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ramesh P. v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, where it was held that the competency of a witness, including a child witness, is to be determined by the trial judge through an assessment of the witness’s ability to understand questions and provide rational answers.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the trial court had conducted a voir dire examination of the victim to assess her competency. The examination demonstrated that the witness understood the questions put to her and gave rational answers both during examination-in-chief and cross-examination.

The Court further observed that the evidence on record showed that the victim consistently narrated the incident and identified the accused during the trial. Nothing emerged during cross-examination to suggest that her mental condition prevented her from understanding the proceedings or giving coherent answers.

The Court also held that the investigating officer’s failure to identify the victim as mentally challenged at the stage of recording her statement did not affect the prosecution's case, particularly when the witness had demonstrated her ability to understand and respond during the trial.

The Court examined the testimony of the victim, who stated that the accused had repeatedly committed sexual acts upon her at his house. The victim identified the accused in court and described the acts committed by him.

Medical evidence also supported the prosecution's case. The doctor who examined the victim stated that the medical examination revealed evidence of vaginal penetration. Another doctor who examined the accused certified that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.

The Court also referred to the evidence of the victim’s mother, the teacher who was informed about the incident during counselling, and the headmaster who produced school records establishing the victim’s age.

Upon considering the entire evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had proved the commission of rape by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the Sessions Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and had rightly relied upon the testimony of the victim. Finding no infirmity in the conviction or the sentence imposed, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Cause Title: Appukuttan v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:18933)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)

Respondent: Ambika Devi S., Special Government Pleader (Atrocities Against Women and Children and Welfare of Women and Children), Vipin Narayanan, Senior Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment