You are on page 1of 2

WHETHER THE OFFENCE COMMITTED BY APPELLANT HAS THE INTENTION OR THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACT.????

SEC 86, PROVE THE KNOWLEDGE & INTENTION.. It is humbly subittted that yes, the appellant had knowledge nd intention of the act. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." A person "intentionally" causes the social harm of an offense if: (1) it is his desire (i.e., his conscious object) to cause the social harm; or (2) he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct. The facts clearly state that he intended to inflict bodily injuries on the deceased and the bodily injuries so intended to be inflicted, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the case of Basudev vs State of Pepsu : the military officer was upheld to be guilty of murder, because he had intention and knowledge for committing a crime. Again in the case of Mavari Surya Sathya Narayan v. State of AP

The accused and the deceased were married for 11 years. He was an alcoholic and quarreled often with her. One day he came home drunk and asked her to sign on some blank papers. When she refused, he pulled her by her hair and dragged her into the room and attempted to set fire on her. The deceased put out the flames and tried to run away. The accused again pulled her, poured kerosene and set fire to her. The deceased died of the burns. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on the SC decision in Basudev v. State of Pepsu, held that having regard to the facts, it couldn’t be said that the accused was in total loss of mental power and hence the provisions of s.85 will not apply. The same is applicable in the present case. The accused was involuntarily intoxicated, but at the same time he had enough knowledge that he was provoked, and also picked up a gravel to kill the deceased, and later on stabbed him to death. Thus he had enough knowledge of what he was doing and he cannot take the plea of being “high” as well, cause it was done by hom on his own choice. In the case of Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka the accused was held guilty because he had voluntarily consumed alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

and thus should be convicted accordingly. and he had both knowledge and intention of the same.The term knowledge signifies the psychological state of mind. Here the accused. . Thus taking into light the following cases and the facts and circumstances of the present case it can be concluded that the accused was guilty of murder. despite being high had the knowledge that stabbing a person would lead to his death. Still he did the same.