SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Printed For: , Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1937 SCC OnLine Cal 66 : AIR 1937 Cal 432 : 1937 Cri LJ 868

Calcutta High Court

(BEFORE DERBYSHIRE, C.J. AND HENDERSON, J.)

Manindra Lal Das … Appellant;

Versus
Emperor
Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1937
Decided on April 21, 1937
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HENDERSON, J.:— The appellant is a Police Officer who was the guard of a Sub-
Inspector attached to the District Intelligence Branch in Barisal. He was carrying on an
intrigue with a prostitute named Bimala. There can be no doubt that the jury accepted
her evidence that he shot her in three places with his revolver. There was also
evidence to show that he was drunk at the time. He was placed on his trial on charges
under Ss. 307 and 326, I.P.C. The jury found him guilty under both. The only point
taken on his behalf is that the learned Judge misdirected the jury with regard to the
law relating to drunkenness. What he said was in these terms:
If an act is done in a state of intoxication and that intoxication is voluntarily
incurred, he is equally liable before the law as if he had done that act in a state of
sobriety.
2. Now, in my opinion, that direction is entirely inadequate as a statement of the
law on the point. The learned Judge should have told the jury that, as far as
knowledge was concerned, it must be taken that the accused had the same knowledge
as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated. There is, however, no such
presumption with regard to intention.
3. The learned Judge should then have directed the jury that, if they were satisfied
that he was intoxicated at the time, they should take that fact and the other facts into
consideration in determining whether they were satisfied that the intention alleged by
the prosecution had been made out. This was not done and we really do not know
upon what view of the facts the jury brought in a verdict of guilty under S. 307. We
have reached the conclusion that this failure to direct the jury properly has not led to
any miscarriage of justice so far as the conviction under S. 326 is concerned. It was
not necessary for the prosecution to establish any intention here. It was enough to
show that the appellant knew that he was

Page: 433

likely to cause grievous hurt. In order to succeed on this point, therefore, Mr. Guha
would have to satisfy us, that a properly instructed jury would be prepared to hold
that a sober man, who fired three shots into a woman, would not know that he was
likely thereby to cause grievous hurt. In my opinion it is quite impossible to suppose
that any jury could come to suc a conclusion. We are not prepared to interfere with
this conviction.

4. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer attempted to support the conviction

under S. 307 on the supposition that the case comes within the fourth part of ‘murder’
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, July 27, 2022
Printed For: , Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as defined in S. 300. One difficulty in accepting this view is that the learned Judge
read the whole of the section to the jury, and, as my Lord pointed out during the
argument, we do not know upon what view of the facts they were led to take this to be
a case of attempted murder. In my opinion the learned Judge ought not to have
referred to the fourth part of the section at all. The appellant fired three shots at the
woman and hit her three times. It is, therefore, quite clear that his action was
deliberately aimed at her. In order to convict him of murder the prosecution would
have to establish one of the intentions set out in S. 300. As example, the fourth part
of the section is to be found in Illus, (d): in my opinion this provision applies to a
person who commits an act of that nature and has no intention of causing an injury; to
any particular individual. In my opinion that provision was never intended to apply to
cases of this kind. If the prosecution case had been that the accused had no intention
of causing any injury to this girl at all and that he was merely discharging his revolver
in a reckless manner, then this fourth part of the section might apply; but on the
evidence such a case would be quite unreasonable. We therefore set aside the
conviction and the sentence passed under S. 307; but we maintain the conviction and
the sentence under S. 326, I.P.C. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.
DERBYSHIRE, C.J.:— I agree.
K.B./A.L.
5. Appeal dismissed.
———
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.