JUDGMENTBY: THOMSON CJ

(delivering oral judgment): This appellant was convicted at the Muar Assizes for the murder of one Chand Singh in contravention of section 302 of the Penal Code. The verdict of the jury was a majority one.

At this stage I do not think it is necessary to say anything about the facts of the case beyond observing that there was abundant evidence to show that the appellant and the deceased came together in a street in Batu Pahat on 22nd April this year and the appellant inflicted on the deceased a stab wound as a result of which he died. I do not think that that stabbing has ever at any time been in any real controversy.

But it is also clear on the evidence that at the time of the stabbing the appellant had taken drink and may or may not have been under the influence of the drink which he had taken.

The trial Judge in his charge to the jury dealt with the matter in this way. He described the injury which it was said the appellant had inflicted on the deceased and he pointed out (as is frequently pointed out in such circumstances, and I hasten to add frequently and quite properly) that they were entitled to rely on the presumption that a man intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts and that in the circumstances of the present case that presumption, unless it was rebutted, would make out the intention to kill, which is a necessary ingredient in the crime of murder.

So far we are not prepared to quarrel with what his Lordship said.

He went on, however, to deal with the question of the drink which the appellant had taken and here unfortunately we find ourselves unable to agree with what he said.

There are two passages in the summing-up in which he dealt with the point. They are as follows:--

"It is no defence for the accused to say that he has no recollection of

what happened because he was drunk. Where an accused person gets into a

state of drunkenness of his own free will, the Court will not attach

any importance to the fact that he was drunk and will draw the natural

inferences from his acts. So if you are satisfied and sure in your

minds that the accused did in fact stab the deceased, the fact that he

was drunk is no defence."

and again at a later stage:

"You must put the question of drunkenness out of your minds when you

come to consider your verdict, for, as I have already told you,

voluntary drunkenness is no defence."

Now, no doubt these passages correctly state the effect of the Penal Code as it was before it was amended in 1936 and no doubt they correctly state the relevant provisions to-day of the Indian Penal Code, although I am not sure that they correctly state the law as it is in fact applied in India to-day. That, however, is beside the point, because in 1936 the Penal Code was amended and there is very little doubt that it was so amended in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard [1920] AC 479 where the late Lord Birkenhead reviewed very extensively the English law relating to drunkenness which by that time had fallen into a certain amount of confusion.

In particular, the Penal Code was amended by the insertion of the following new sub-section 86(ii):--

"Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of

determining whether the person charged had formed any intention,

specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty

of the offence."

That is the same as the English law and an example of how it has been put to a jury is to be found in the words of Lord Coleridge in Meades case [1909] 1 KB 895. Lord Coleridges words were:--

"Where it is part of the essence of a crime that a motive, a particular

motive, shall exist in the mind of the man who does the act, the law

declares this -- that if the mind at that time as so obscure by drink,

if the reason is dethroned and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document