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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

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...

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.