Investigating Officer has to subject accused to psychiatric assessment if his sanity is in doubt: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that an Investigating Officer (IO) is duty-bound to subject an accused to a psychiatric assessment immediately upon arrest if there is any doubt about his sanity [Ajay Ram Pandit v. The State of Maharashtra]..A bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav observed that once the IO was informed by witnesses that the applicant was known to be of unsound mind, it was his duty to subject the applicant to a psychiatric assessment."...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 trial court," the Court stated..The prosecution alleged that in 2011, the appellant assaulted a pedestrian with an iron rod because of which the pedestrian died.From witness depositions, the Court gathered that the appellant was of unsound mind and that the police officer who arrested him had specific knowledge of the same."Conjoint reading of the depositions and admissions given in the cross-examination by the aforesaid three witnesses reveal an important facet in the present case i.e. the fact of insanity of appellant. That the police officer who first reached the spot of incident and apprehended the Appellant and brought him to the police station had specific knowledge that he was having mental issues," the Court stated.In this background, the Court said that it was the duty of the Police Officer to immediately subject the appellant to a mental status examination, which he failed to do..Further, it noted that the appellant had moved an application before the trial court seeking a psychiatric assessment report and the report concluded that there was no active psychopathology.However, the Court observed that the accused was arrested in 2011 but was subjected to the assessment in 2014."However it needs to be noted that the date of incident is 03.09.2011 whereas the date of the psychiatric report is 21.11.2014 i.e. more than 3 years after the date of incident," it recorded.It said that if the applicant was subjected to the assessment right after his arrest, the status of his mind would have been proved immediately..The Court, referring to the apex court's decision in Bapu @ Gujraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, determined that the appellant deserved to be given the benefit of doubt as there was evidence on record to show that the he was of unsound mind at the time of incident and the prosecution was aware of the same.Hence, observing that the IO's failure to get the appellant examined created serious infirmity in the prosecution's case, the court acquitted the appellant of all charges levelled against him.In addition, the Court ordered that the appellant undergo a psychiatric evaluation. It stated that if the report was normal, he should be released immediately, and that if the report confirmed issues with his mental status, he should be treated in a mental institution in Pune by jail authorities before being released..Advocate Nasreen S. Ayubi appeared for the appellant. Assistant Public Prosecutor JS Lohakare appeared for respondent - State.[Read Judgment]