Name

Imtiaz Ahamed Alias Imtiaz Pasha vs State By Laxmipuram Police, Mysore on

9/7/2001
Citation
ILR 2001 KAR 3790, 2002 (3) KarLJ 224
Judge
H Narayan, N Veerabhadraiah
Facts
This is an appeal against the judgment given by Additional Sessions judge, Mysore,
SC No. 78 of 1995, holding him guilty of murdering his father-in-law and attempt on
the life of his mother-in-law and wife, punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.
Accused was married to Jahanara Prosecution Witness 2 (PW 2) for about ten years
and had two children out of the marriage. The accused was registered as a bad
character because of drinking problem, ill-treating his wife and a criminal record for
which he was sent to jail for three months. During this period his wife the PW 2 went
to her parents place. Accused went to his parents-in-laws (Deceased and PW 1) and
persuaded them to send his wife back home and also promised that he will take
good care of her. Hence, she was sent to the house of accused. But accused did not
improve upon his behavior continued drinking and used to assault his wife. A day
prior to the date of incident, which occurred on 12-2-1995, the accused tried to
assault his wife while she was reading Namaaz. Luckily she escaped and ran to her
father’s house. Due to this deceased and the accused had a quarrel. The deceased
went to the elder brother of accused and informed him about the incident and also
asked him to advise his brother to give Talaq to his daughter. The accused when
came to knowledge about the same got angry and on the next day that is the date
of incident February 12th, 1995 at about 9:00 A.M. went to house of deceased in a
drunk condition and holding a choori. He stabbed the deceased repeatedly in his
abdomen. The PW1 & 2 came to rescue of deceased, but accused assaulted them
and caused some bloody injuries. Due to all this chaos and ruckus people gathered
in the neighbourbood. And someone from them informed police about the incident.
And neighbours shifted deceased and PW 1 &2 to a hospital, where he was declared
dead. The Station house officer of the jurisdictional Police, who visited the place of
incident found accused in an unconscious state near the house of deceased and he
was also shifted to a hospital for the treatment. Criminal case was registered under
Sec. 302 and 307 of IPC.

Issues
The main issue before the Hon’ble Court in the present appeal is to ascertain if the
acts of the defendant falls under the provisions of General Exceptions.
The learned counsel of the defendant tried to apply Section 85 of the IPC, falling
under Chapter IV of the code.
Section 85 says about Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of
intoxication against his will. It specifically talks about a situation in which a person is
intoxicated without his will or his knowledge, and there after he commits some
offence.
Relying on the exceptions the Learned counsel has pleaded that since he was
incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or whether what he was doing was
wrong or contrary to law and therefore, his act falls within the exception to Section
300 of the IPC, and is liable to be punished under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
Section 304 of IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Decision
Hon’ble Court upheld the judgement of the Additional Sessions Court, and dismissed
the current appeal.
Court used the Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. “Burden of proving that case
of accused comes within exceptions.”
It says that if a person is to claim general exception to be applied on his case, he
has the burden of proof and the court shall presume the absence of such
circumstance.
The court while arriving upon judgment used judgment delivered in State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Ram Swarup And Anr., the case dealt with burden which rests upon the
prosecution to establish that its case rest beyond the reasonable doubt. The court
did not accept the precedence given by the Learned counsel for defendant citing
that the cases are surrounded and are based in different circumstances and
situations.
The Hon’ble Court held that the accused consumed the alcohol in the morning and
after that he had reasonable time before committing such a grave offence. And
also there was no evidence to corroborate the section 85 in current case therefore it
was quashed by the Hon’ble Court, citing the crux of the section which is
involuntary intoxication.

Critique

The instant case is a good case law. The Hon’ble Court has held that guilt of the
accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Coram of Judges has
patiently heard the present appeal against the judgment of Additional Sessions
judge. And the accused has been given a reasonable and free and fair trial. But
ultimately court upheld the judgement of the lower court. The Hon’ble Court has
also dealt with issue of reliability of the witnesses in detail and has placed reliance
on their evidence and statement.

The ratio decidendi given by the Hon’ble Court while quashing the section 85 of IPC
was that it holds no basis to it as it specifically deals with involuntary intoxication,
the Hon’ble Judge reiterated the judgement given by the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in Chet Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh. Hon’ble Judge rightly pointed out
that the remedy given in Section 85 of IPC cannot be claimed by the person who
voluntary consumed alcohol and committed the grave offence inspite of having
reasonable time and opportunity for introspection.

Hon’ble Court differentiated the case cited by the learned counsel of the defendant,
Mirza Ghani Baig v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, decided by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court. And also Babu Sahiv Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra which was used in giving
the judgement in the previous case. Hon’ble Court said that the circumstances
associated with the case were the main reason for the ultimate Judgement besides
the relevant law associated with it. And all these three case cannot be looked into
isolation and they should be looked in detailed manner. And on the basis of detail
inspection of the facts the Hon’ble Court said that the two cases do not hold much
ground in relevance of the present case as there was no evidence which can say
that the accused did not have intention to kill his father-in-law. On the contrary the
circumstances associated with the case clearly show that he had all intention the
force required to commit such a grave offence.

The Hon’ble Court also discussed the provisions of Section 86 of IPC. The section
deals with an offence committed by a person during state of intoxication with the
intent or particular knowledge. The Hon’ble Court held that the person intoxicated
will considered to be on same footing as a person who is not intoxicated, a
presumption shall be made regarding the knowledge, that an intoxicated person will
be said to have same knowledge like a sober person but in case of intention, the
Court shall gather the circumstances associated and then decide.

However, in this case, there are no such circumstances pleaded by the accused nor
there are circumstances available before the Court from reading of the entire
evidence that the accused had no intention to kill his father-in-law.

Hon’ble Court to remove the doubt from the minds of defendant and his counsel
held that if it is apparent from the evidence on the record, whether produced by the
Prosecution or by defence, that a general exception would apply, then the
presumption is removed and it is open to the Court to consider whether the
evidence proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the accused come within the
exception. It is settled proposition that in a criminal case, the general rule is that
the accused person must always be presumed to be innocent and the onus of
proving everything essential to the establishment of the offence is on the
prosecution. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act is an important qualification of
this rule. The settled position in these matters is that the accused is in a much
favourable position than the prosecution, because he is not in general called upon
to prove them beyond reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if he succeeds in proving
a prima facie case and establishes a reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution.