Certificate of unsoundness of mind after attack not reliable, says Bombay high court

The Bombay high court recently rejected the petition filed by a 27-year-old architect and resident of South Mumbai wherein he had sought quashing of the proceedings arising out of an FIR against him.
The man was booked by the Marine Drive police station as he had attacked and injured two police personnel who tried to stop him as he was carrying a chopper and was moving suspiciously in the area.
The man was booked by the Marine Drive police station as he had attacked and injured two police personnel who tried to stop him as he was carrying a chopper and was moving suspiciously in the area.
Updated on Oct 11, 2021 10:38 PM IST
Copy Link
ByK A Y Dodhiya, Mumbai

The Bombay high court recently rejected the petition filed by a 27-year-old architect and resident of South Mumbai wherein he had sought quashing of the proceedings arising out of an FIR against him. The man was booked by the Marine Drive police station as he had attacked and injured two police personnel who tried to stop him as he was carrying a chopper and was moving suspiciously in the area.

The architect’s counsel had claimed that his client was not in a proper frame of mind when the incident occurred and as the attack was not premeditated, he should not be made to undergo a trial for intent to murder and other sections of the Indian Penal Code under which he is booked. The court however held that as no proof was placed before the court to prove the unsoundness of the man before, during or after the incident, it was not inclined to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR and rejected the petition.

A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, while hearing the petition filed by Karan Nair was informed by advocate Rizwan Merchant that his client was booked on May 8, 2020, as police inspector Jitendra Kadam and a sub-inspector from Marine Drive police station received cuts on their shoulder and hand respectively by the chopper which Nair was wielding. Merchant claimed that his client was not aware of what he was doing as he had suffered a bout of insanity and had no intention to harm anyone. In light of these submissions Merchant sought reliefs.

According to the complaint filed at the behest of Kadam, on May 8, while on patrol Kadam spotted Nair roaming around with a chopper in his hand. Nair was not wearing a mask which was mandatory due to the Covid-19 pandemic which was at its peak at the time. The complaint states that when Kadam confronted Nair, the knife wielding man threatened to attack the police personnel and ran off.

Kadam gave chase and when he managed to catch Nair, he was hit by the chopper on his shoulder. The sub-inspector who had joined Kadam in the chase also received a gash on his right arm by the chopper. The police finally managed to overpower Nair and brought him to the police station where he was booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act.

Merchant submitted that when Nair was produced before the magistrate for remand he had claimed to be of unsound mind at the time of the incident, but the magistrate refused to accept and assigned the case for trial. Merchant added that as the act of assaulting the police personnel was not premeditated and Nair was not aware of the outcome of his act he could not be subjected to the rigours of the trial.

However, additional public prosecutor S R Shinde for the state and Kadam submitted that the claim of unsoundness of mind could not be accepted as there was no proof of Nair suffering from any such ailment prior, during or after the incident. Nair assaulted the cops fully aware of what he was doing and was also aware of the consequence of his act, hence the petition should not be entertained.

After hearing submissions the bench held that the claim of unsoundness of mind could not be accepted as the mental health certificate submitted by Nair was secured after he was released on bail and it was prepared based on the statements of the mother of Nair. The bench held that as the certificate did not throw light on the mental state of Nair at the time of the incident and as the narrative of the incident showed that he was aware of his act and its consequences, it was not inclined to grant the reliefs sought and rejected the petition.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close Story
SHARE
Story Saved
OPEN APP
×
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Monday, December 06, 2021