Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Against Intoxication Defense and Murder Accusation.
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Case Title: Nanhe vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2023
Dated on: NOVEMBER 21, 2023.
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA and JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Facts of the Case:
A significant incident had taken place on the 30th of May 2007, near about 3:30 in the afternoon, in the market area of Sudikhera in which Mahendra sustained injuries and Saddam Hussein, the son of Mohd. Ali, lost his life in a quarrel. Two cases, which are Crime No. 169/2007 under all the relevant Section mentioned in the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and crime No. 170/2007 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 were charged to accused Nanhe. Both cases were legally combined and tried as Sessions Trial Nos. 1097 of 2007 and 1212 of 2007. On 14th May 2010, the trial court passed a life sentence strict which branches out to the imprisonment for Rs. 5000/- and an additional year's imprisonment in default of the payment of the fine. Last but not least, they did elicit Nanhe's sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act; he got two years of rigorous imprisonment whereas he was also given a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
Legal Provisions:
The sections of law predominantly implicated in this case are mainly Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with culpable homicide and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The judge also discussed the admissibility of Section 86 IPC related to the drunkenness, which asserts that the intoxication effect can be invoked to the extent of becoming a defense only when the accused cannot understand that his act is wrong or the consequences thereof.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued by Nanhe, the petitioner, that the death of Saddam Hussein was not a deliberate act but an accident caused by his state of uproarious intoxication. He claimed that he had no malice to kill, the fact was that Mahendra was his true target. Nanhe's line of defense was that he was not in a normal condition of mind due to being drunk which makes it impossible for him to have the intent for a charge of murder under the Section 302 IPC.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The claimant, on behalf of the U.P. government, contended that Nanhe, although intoxicated, was able to comprehend his actions and was not unreasonable. It was further mentioned that Nanhe, even when heavily drunk, can not only walk but also come back to the spot after the initial quarrel and purposefully cause the death of the shot that has Saddam killed. Consequently, the respondent opined that Nanhe was intentionally acting and at the same time, was aware of all implications.
Court Analysis:
The court judiciously probed the evidence put forward and of the key witness. Mohd. Ali (PW1) and Sub-Inspector (PW6) also admitted the accused was intoxicated but the court observed that he could do things on purpose. He first absconded, came back, and shot, all of which relied on his mental alertness and ability to understand what he did. The court thereupon disapproved the application of Section 86 IPC by asserting that no evidence was brought forth to suggest that Nanhe's intoxication functionally injured his understanding or that it wasn't his will.
Judgment:
The court inherited and approved the judgment of the High Court, which confirmed Nanhe's conviction and his imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC. The court held that the murder was most probably a mistake but this fact alone cannot lessen the punishment as there is no evidence that the person was affected and did not understand the fact. Therefore, the appeal was denied. Nonetheless, the judge mentioned Nanhe's right to ask for remission under the State's remission policy and hoped quick and fair consideration by the State.
Conclusion:
Ruling for the lower courts' that the prosecution it was intoxicated but it did not save the defenser and the evidence proved that the reduced homicide from murder to culpable homicide is a false road. By the way, the decision to retain the same sentence without any reduction was taken up after the lower court through similar explanations as well. Thus, Officially and on paper, Nanhe's conviction under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act, 1959 were so were neither rational nor legal.
"OLQ is an online legal platform connecting legal expertise nationwide"
Written By - Advocate Anik
