Skip to main content

Doctor’s certificate not enough for insanity plea - Mumbai HC

A doctor's certificate is not enough to declare that an accused was insane at the time of committing a crime, the Bombay high court has said.

A division bench of Justices V M Kanade and P D Kode made the observation on Wednesday while hearing a petition seeking confirmation of the death penalty for Santosh Mane, a state transport bus driver, who mowed down nine persons in Pune. Mane's lawyers have claimed that he was of "unsound mind" at the time of the incident and was undergoing psychiatric treatment.

"Merely because a doctor gives a certificate, it is not sufficient to declare that an accused was not sane at the time of the incident," observed the judges. "There has to be a finding by the trial court after evidence is led that the accused was of unsound mind." The bench questioned the defence over raising the plea of insanity at a belated stage.

The defence had not raised the issue during the trial. It did so only after the HC remanded the case back to the sessions court after the verdict was pronounced for the first time.

Mane's lawyers claimed that he had been subjected to electro-convulsive therapy; the doctor's report said Mane claimed "he heard voices, thought the world was going to end, a war was going on where everyone would be killed and people were coming after him".

The court asked the lawyers if Mane had reported his problems to his employers. The defence advocate said that state bus authorities had not been informed.

Public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde opposed the defence's plea and said Mane was sane and perfectly in his senses when he committed the crime. He pointed out that the trial court had ruled that his claims had no basis and he was not insane at the time of committing the crime. The high court will continue with the hearing on Thursday.

On January 25, 2012, Mane hijacked a state transport bus from Swargate depot in Pune and drove recklessly, mowing down everything in the vehicle's path. The rampage was brought to an end by the police, but not before Mane had killed nine people and injured 37 others.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Doctors-certificate-not-enough-for-insanity-plea/articleshow/37206509.cms?

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...