IO Duty Bound To Subject Accused To Mental Examination Immediately After Arrest In Appropriate Cases: Bombay High Court

A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Milind N. Jadhav acquitted the appellant in a criminal appeal against his murder conviction observing that there was a reasonable doubt to the sanity of the appellant and the prosecution had failed to discharge the same.

The court stated in its order, "once PW-7 – IO became aware of the fact after apprehending the Appellant that he was mentally retarded, it was his lawful duty to subject the Appellant to medical examination and place the evidence of such medical examination before the learned Trial Court".

The appellant had been convicted under section 302 of the IPC for assaulting a pedestrian with iron rod after which he died.

Witnesses stated that prior to the assault, there had been abuse between the appellant and the victim. People who gathered after the incident stated that the appellant was insane.

The Police Naik testified that the persons who caught the appellant had informed him that he was mentally retarded.

The court said that the witness statements reveal an important facet of the case, i.e., the insanity of the appellant. The police officer who brought him to the police station had specific knowledge that he had mental issues.

The trial court had examined six witnesses before granting the application for medical examination of the appellant for mental issues. His psychiatric evaluation stated that he was conscious and oriented and did not suffer from any insanity.

The court noted however, that the psychiatric evaluation was conducted more than 3 years after the actual date of incident.

The court observed that if reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the trial court regarding the mental insanity of the appellant, the prosecution has the duty to place adequate evidence to quell such doubt.

The court said that investigating officer did not have the appellant medically examined after his arrest which would have proven the status of his mind immediately after the occurrence of the incident.

The court relied on Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan and held that it was the lawful duty of the investigating officer to have the appellant medically examine and place the evidence of such examination before the trial court.

The medical report given three years after the incident cannot be relied upon due to the prolonged period between the incident and the evaluation, said the court.

"It was incumbent upon the IO to subject the Appellant to medical examination by the Psychiatrist immediately after he was apprehended which was admittedly not done by the IO", the court stated.

The court concluded, "benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the Appellant as there is evidence on record which shows that the Appellant was mentally retarded at the time of incident and it was to the knowledge of the prosecution. Hence, after carefully and minutely scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, it is seen that in the present case the IO has failed to get the Appellant examined through a Psychiatrist after the incident and produce the result of such examination in evidence."

The court said that the omission of the investigating officer to not have the appellant medically examined for mental issues creates very serious infirmity in the prosecution's case.

Thus, the court set aside the appellant's conviction with the following directions -

Before his release, the appellant has to undergo evaluation of his mental status. If the mental status is normal, then the appellant shall be released. However, if the report says that there is any issue with respect to mental status of the appellant, he would be referred for treatment in the mental hospital and released after his treatment is over.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2017

Case title – Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 401