STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus AHMAD ULLAH.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 25-01-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
3 S.C.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
583 
the solicitor for the respondent called upon the appel-
lant to execute the documents they were not bound to 
do so. We are unable to accord our assent to this 
proposition. The case upon which the Counsel for the 
appellant relied, i.e., Ismail Bhai Rahim v. Adam 
Osman (1), in our opinion has no application to the 
facts and circumstances of this case. It was held in 
that case that the offer made by a promisor through 
a solicitor to pay a debt with interest thereon at the 
date of the offer does not of itself afford a reasonable 
opportunity to the. promisee of ascertaining that the 
promisor is able and willing to perform his promise. 
Unless there is something peculiar in the circum-
stances of that case that case does not lay down good 
law. It is difficult to see why a tender made through 
a solicitor who is for that purpose an agent, is not a 
proper tender. 
In our opinion the High Court rightly .held that the 
respondents were entitled to a decree for specific per-
formance and we therefore dismiss this appeal with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
AHMAD ULLAH. 
(A. K. SARKAR and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Murder-Plea of unsoundness of mind-Crucial time-Acquittal 
-High Court's refusal to reverse, if justifiable-Indian Penal Code, 
ss. 84, 3oz. 
The High Court affirmed an order of acquittal of the respond-
ent on a charge of murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code 
passed by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the accused was 
of unsound mind. The prosecution case was that the accused 
committed the murder of his mother-in-law against whom he had 
borne ill-will, by severing her head from her body while she was 
asleep at dead of mght. He made" confession of the crime but 
a plea of insanity was taken at the trial. · On appeal with special 
leave by the State : 
· 
H dd, that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of 
mind should be established is the time when the crime jg actually 
(1) I.L.R. [1938] 2 Cal. 337. 
75 
I96I 
lnlef'national 
Contractors Ltd. 
v. 
Prasanta Kum at 
Sur 
Kapur J. 
z96z 
z96I 
State of 
Madhya Pradesh 
v. 
AhmaduUah 
584 
SUP):tEME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
committed, the burden of proving which lies on the accused in 
order to entitle him to the exemption provided under s. 84 of the 
Indian Penal Code. 
. 
It is not. sufficient only to prove that the accused suffered 
from an " epileptic type of insanity " before or after the com-
mission of the crime. 
Henry Perry, 14 Cr. Appeal Rep. 48, followed. 
There was nothing on the record of the instant case to show 
that at the moment when the crime was committed the accused 
was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong or 
contrary to law and as such he was not entitled to an acquittal 
under .s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 
Refusal by the High Court to interfere with an acquittal in 
the proved circumstances of the case could not be justified under 
any rule as to "impelling reasons ". 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
\ppeal No; 120 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated February 28, 1958, of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court (Gwalior Bench), in Criminal Appeal No. 3 
of 1957. 
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
1961. January 25. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Ayy•"lf•• J. 
AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
by the State of Madhya PNl.desh against the dismissal 
of an appeal preferred by it to the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) which declined 
to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the 
Sessions Judge holding the respondent not guilty of 
an offence under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The ground of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, which 
was concurred in by the High Court was that the 
respondent was of unsound mind at the time of the 
commission of the crime and so was entitled to an 
acquittal under s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 
There is very little dispute about the facts or even 
about the construction of s. 84 of the Code because 
both the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned 
Judges of the High Court on appeal have held that 
the cru~ial point of ~ime at which the unsoundness of 
' 
) 
I 
; 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
585 
mind, as defined in that section, has to be established 
is when the act was committed. It is the application 
of this principle to the facts established by the evid-
ence that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.