Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
K. N. SHUKLAADDL, J.
ENRIQUE F. RIO
VERSUS
STATE
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1971,
Decided On : 31 -1 -1975
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 307, 304 PART II, 308, 86 IPC - SUMMARY OF FACTS, FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO AND DECISION - COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED WAS INTOXICATED AND INCAPABLE OF FORMING THE REQUISITE INTENT FOR MURDER, BUT STILL LIABLE FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER AND DANGEROUS INJURY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder and attempted murder for stabbing the deceased and injuring another person while intoxicated. The appellant claimed he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident and that his intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the specific intent required for murder. However, the court held that the appellant was still liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and dangerous injury due to the provisions of Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was intoxicated to the extent that he was incapable of forming the specific intent required for murder? 2. Whether the appellant's intoxication negated the mens rea required for murder?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that a person who commits an act while intoxicated shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the intoxication was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. The court also referred to the case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu, where it was held that evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration to determine whether or not he had this intent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the appellant's conviction for murder and attempted murder and convicting him instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and dangerous injury. The court sentenced the appellant to five years and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently.
1. Appellant has filed this appeal from jail against his conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and six years' R.I. respectively. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The incident took place around midnight intervening 16th and 17th of May, 1971. The accused, the deceased and most of the prosecution witnesses were at the relevant time working as sailors on vessels "Mekari" and "Precious Pearl" which were docked at Marmagoa at berth No. 5.
3. A few hours before the incident the accused and prosecution witnesses Parahinog P.W. 1 and Borromeo P.W. 6 had gone to Vasco and had taken drinks together. Later at about 8 p.m. the accused again went along with Parahinog and Peredo (P.W. 4) to Vasco and again he drank lot of liquor. As he was not able to walk properly Parahinog reprimanded him and even boxed him on the face. However, they soon started embracing each other. As accused had consumed lot of liquor at Baina Beach, Peredo P.W. 4 took him to his ship 'Mekari' in a taxi. At about 11.30 p.m. Parahinog accompanied by the deceased and witnesses Solis P.W. 2 and Contreras P.W. 3 went to their ship 'Mekari.' When Parahinog and the deceased reached the top of the gangway, the accused who was standing at the entrance way attacked Parahinog with a knife inflicting a stab wound on his stomach. Parahinog turned to run away. The deceased tried to stop the accused from chasing Parahinog. The accused thereupon stabbed the deceased on the stomach and also inflicted two wounds on the back side of his neck. The deceased staggered for a few steps and collapsed. He nearly died instantaneously. Parahinog also lost consciousness after running a short distance. He was taken to the Hospital where he was treated surgically. Meanwhile the accused had been caught and detained by the first mate of the ship. Report was lodged at the Police Station and the accused was taken to custody. After the panchanama the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. Death was found to have been caused as a result of the abdominal injury.
4. The accused in his examination under Section 342, Criminal P.C. admitted that he had gone ashore with Parahinog and Peredo where he took lot of drinks and there was a quarrel when Parahinog had boxed him. He denied to have caused any injury to Parahinog or to the deceased Satumbaga with a knife as alleged. The accused pleaded that he was heavily drunk at Baina Beach and was brought to the ship by some person. He went to his cabin and slept and he did not know anything as to what had happened.
5. P.W. 15 Dr. Sardessai performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 17-5-1971 and found the following injuries :-
"(1) One cut wound with edges dark bluish in colour placed vertically, eliptical in shape, size 1" x ¼" x transverse processes of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th cervical vertebrae of left side. The site was 3½" below and 1½" posterior to the lobule of the penal of the left ear.
(2) Cut wound eliptical in shape placed obliquely transversal slightly downwards and medially and through this cut wound one loop of small bowel bearing two cuts was seen protruding out of the size of 1" x ½" x peritonial cavity the site of which 2½" medial to right anterior superior iliac spine.
(3) Abrasion irregular in shape of the size ½" x ¼" situated just above the right patella.
(4) Abrasion size -" x ½" situated in mid front of the right leg. All these injuries were antemortem. There was one postmortem injury caused by ant bite. They were multiple small abrasions varying in size situated in maxilae. The aforesaid injuries were all external.
The internal injuries were as follows :-
(1) "The above mentioned injury on the bowel.
(2) Cut in the blood vessels in the wall of the abdomen. As a result of this cutting there was in the peritonial cavity 840 ml (blood)."
According to Dr. Sardessai the death was caused by shock as a result of the perforating injuries
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
