LexBASDEV versus THE STATE OF PEPSU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 363 24th August 1954 pa§sed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 45 of 1954, after their application for leave to ap- peal to this Court had been dismissed by that Court's order dated the 5th August 1955. '!'his petition was not filed within the time limited by the rules of this Court and on their own showing there was a delay of 44 days in filing the petition for special leave. The only ground urged in support of the application for condonation of delay (being Civil Miscellaneous Peti- tion No. 1402 of 1955) is that they had to collect money from amongst a large number of petitioners who were interested in the case. In our opinion, that is not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. In the result, both the petition under article 32 of the Constitution and the petition for special leave to appeal are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. BAS DEV v. THE STATE OF PEPSU [BH<lGWATI and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] Indian Penal Gode, (XLV of 1860), ss. 802-80"·86-Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Accztsed ttnder the influ- ence of drink but his mind not so obscured by the drink as to cause incapacity in him to form the requisite intention-Knowledge and intention. So far as knowledge is concerned the court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober but so far as intent or intention is concerned, the court must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. If the man was beside his mind altogether for the time being, it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about the court will apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts. That rule of law is well settled: 1. That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or other- wise, is a defence to the crime charged; 1956 Banarsi Das and others v. The State of Utta1· Pradesh and others Sinha J. 19.56 April 17 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] 1956 2. The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused in- capable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime Basdev · should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in v · order to determine whether or not he had this intent; The State of PePs11 . . 3. That evidence of drunkenness fallmg short of a proved in- capacity 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 ga.ve wa.y to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural con- sequences of his acts. Directoi· of Pnblic Prosecntions v. Beard, ((1920] A.C. 479), referred to. On the finding in the present case that although the accused was under the influence of drink, he was not so much under its in- fluence that his mind was obscured to such an extent that there was incapacity in him to form the required intention the offence was not reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under tho second part of s. 304 of the Indian Penal Code. CRIMINAL ·APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1955. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 10th May 1955 of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1954 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 21st June, 1954 of the Court of Sessions Judge at Barnala -in Sessions Case No .. 18 of 1954. J. N. Kaushal and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, for the respon- dent. 1956. April 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.-The appellant Bas- dev of the village of Harigarh is a retired military J amadar. He is charged with the murder of a young boy named Maghar Singh, aged about 15 or 16. Both of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding in another village. All of them went to the house of the bride to take the midday meal on the 12th March, 1954. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. The appellant asked Maghar Singh, the young boy to step aside a little so that he S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 365 may occupy a convenient seat. But Maghar Singh 1956 did not move. The appellant whipped
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.