SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020

Page 1 Friday, September 18, 2020

Printed For: Hardik Sharma, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Penal Code, 1860

— Ss. 86 and 302 — Culpable homicide — Intoxication, effect of, on criminal liability
A man who strikes another in the throat with a knife must know that the blow is so imminently dangerous that it
must in all probability cause death and the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
Drunkenness makes no difference to the knowledge with which a man is credited and if a man knew what the
natural consequences of his act were he must be presumed to have intended to cause them.
This presumption is not rebutted by evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused
to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime and merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink,
so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion.
The court was satisfied that the circumstances of the case did not justify the infliction of the extreme penalty.
The accused was therefore, ordered to be transported for life.
The facts of the case material to this report are as follows:-
On the morning of the date of occurrence the accused, the deceased and one Hira had their meal and some
toddy at the but of the deceased and then went out together. In the evening the wife of the deceased went to
the accused, told him that her husband had not returned and requested him to see if he was at the toddy shop.
The accused went to look for him and found him with a pot of toddy. The accused laid hands on the pot.
Thereupon a quarrel ensued. The deceased struck the accused and also threw him on the ground. The accused
then stabbed the deceased with a knife. There was no evidence as to where the knife was until the stabbing
actually occurred. A knife which might have caused the injury on the deceased was subsequently recovered from
a room in the house of an aunt of the accused with whom he lived.
Immediately after the occurrence the accused ran through the streets of the village shouting that he had killed
his opponent. One Dasrath, who claimed to have witnessed the crime, was also heard to be shouting that the
accused had killed the deceased.
A little later the accused and his aunt went to a villager named Domi, who was a Municipal Commissioner, and
said "Kasur hogaya, muaf kara" Sometime later the Sub-Inspector found him so drunk as to be unable to make a
statement.
The accused was tried by the Sessions Judge with the aid of four assessors of whom one found him guilty of
murder, two held that he had killed the deceased but was drunk at the time, and one found him not guilty. The
Sessions Judge convicted the accused under S. 302 and sentenced him to death.

Judagi Mallah v. King-Emperor,

1929 SCC OnLine Pat 204 : ILR (1929) 8 Pat 911 (Pat)

Bench Strength 2. Coram : Adami and Chattarji, JJ.

[Date of decision : 12/04/1929]
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.