What Rajasthan High Court said on literal 'naak kaatna'

The Rajasthan High Court recently observed that cutting off someone's nose is a grave offence, particularly given the significance of such an act in Indian history and culture [Hafeez & Ors v State].

Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni made the observation while dismissing the bail applications of certain men who were accused of attacking a man by cutting his nose.

Justice Soni noted that the nose is not just a crucial body part, but also holds social and cultural significance, more so in India.

"Nose is a crucial part of the human body with both functional and symbolic importance. It also holds social and cultural significance, being a prominent feature of the face that contributes to identity, appearance and self-esteem. Cutting of nose would have permanent consequences such as disfigurement. The disfigurement caused by removing someone's nose can lead to significant emotional distress and social stigma. Historically, in Indian culture, cutting off a person’s nose is a form of punishment or revenge intended to humiliate and socially stigmatize the victim," the September 18 order stated.

The Court added that this cultural and symbolic significance linked to the act of disfiguring another's nose makes the crime even more severe. Such an act is a serious crime due to its physical, emotional and social implications, the Court said.

The bail applicants before the Court included the brother-in-law of the victim. The said co-accused and the victim had married each others' sisters. However, due to marital disputes, both women were not living with their husbands and were residing with their parents.

The victim-man was allegedly slated to enter a second marriage without divorcing his wife. Amid growing tensions between the two families, the accused (victim's brother-in-law and three other men) are said to have accosted the victim and attacked him with a sharp weapon to cut his nose.

All of the accused were booked for causing grievous hurt and attempted murder.

The counsel for the accused argued that the victim/ complainant had sustained only one injury, which was neither a fracture nor life-threatening. This was one of the grounds on which the accused sought bail.

However, the Court rejected this argument as ridiculous, opining that the alleged acts crossed all limits of cruelty. It proceeded to hold that it was not inclined to grant bail considering the gravity of the alleged crime, the role of the accused and their antecedents.

Advocate Naman Mohnot appeared for the petitioners (accused).

Public Prosecutor Ramesh Dewasi with Advocate Om Prakash Choudhary represented the State.

Advocate Dinesh Kumar Godar appeared for the complainant/ victim.

[Read Order]