Why do police conduct psychiatric tests on accused?

Indian Express

6 hours ago

A 40-year-old school teacher, who was arrested last week for allegedly sexually assaulting a Class 12 student, underwent a 'psychiatric' test on Thursday. The development came after the Mumbai police asked the court on Wednesday to extend the accused's custody to conduct the examination.
The teacher has been booked under the sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the police, the test was conducted to evaluate the teacher's mental condition to determine her mental health.
Speaking to The Indian Express, a police official has said these tests are conducted on the accused while they are in police custody. The test is executed in the presence of medical experts.
Police usually conduct a psychiatric test to check if the accused was mentally stable at the time of the alleged offence, according to the official.
Section 30 of the POCSO Act defines 'presumption of culpable mental state' as intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. While it is worded in a way to denote 'mental state', the section presumes that the accused was in a mental state or had the intent to commit the alleged offence. The Act puts the onus on the accused to prove that there was no sexual intent or mental state to commit the offence.
This is the opposite of the basic presumption under criminal law which states that a person is innocent until proven guilty of a particular. The burden, in law, is on the investigating agency, or the prosecution to prove the person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by bringing evidence before the court.
Legal experts argue that since the POCSO Act deals with children, putting the burden on them to understand the intent of the abuser can be challenging. Therefore, the presumption of the culpability of the accused's intent, or mental state, is in the favour of the victims under this law.
However, this does not mean that the accused can be held guilty on presumption alone. When the prosecution has cogent evidence, the onus is on the accused to prove the contrary to show their innocence. For instance, if a child deposes that a person touched them inappropriately with sexual intent, the court will presume so, unless the accused can show evidence proving otherwise.