Mental incapacity claims require a recorded Section 329 finding; home video attendance was not permitted for serious criminal proceedings.

Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court first to determine and record whether an accused is of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of making a defence. The notes state that no material showed the accused had been declared of unsound mind, immobilised, or mentally incapacitated. Although ongoing medical treatment justified exemption from travelling for every hearing, the seriousness of the alleged offence supported attendance through an institutional video-conferencing facility. Video-conference attendance from the accused's residence was therefore not permitted; attendance was required through the City Civil Court, Chennai facility.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused invoking mental incapacity under Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be permitted to attend proceedings through video conferencing from his residence rather than from a designated court video-conferencing facility.

Analysis: Section 329 requires the trial court, at the first instance, to determine whether the accused is of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of making his defence, and to record its finding upon satisfaction of that fact. No material established that the accused had been declared of unsound mind, was immobilised, or suffered mental incapacity. Although his medical treatment in Chennai justified relieving him of travel to Madurai for every hearing, the seriousness of the alleged offence required attendance through an available institutional video-conferencing facility.

Conclusion: Permission to attend through video conferencing from the accused's residence was impermissible; he must attend through video conferencing from the City Civil Court, Chennai. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

---