8/8/2019 Case Comment Material 97

1/3

NameImtiaz Ahamed Alias Imtiaz Pasha vs State By Laxmipuram Police, Mysore on9/7/2001CitationILR 2001 KAR 3790, 2002 (3) KarLJ 224Judge

H Narayan, N VeerabhadraiahFacts

This is an appeal against the judgment given by Additional Sessions judge, Mysore,SC No. 78 of 1995, holding him guilty of murdering his father-in-law and attempt onthe life of his mother-in-law and wife, punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.Accused was married to Jahanara Prosecution Witness 2 (PW 2) for about ten yearsand had two children out of the marriage. The accused was registered as a badcharacter because of drinking problem, ill-treating his wife and a criminal record forwhich he was sent to jail for three months. During this period his wife the PW 2 wentto her parents place. Accused went to his parents-in-laws (Deceased and PW 1) andpersuaded them to send his wife back home and also promised that he will takegood care of her. Hence, she was sent to the house of accused. But accused did not

improve upon his behavior continued drinking and used to assault his wife. A dayprior to the date of incident, which occurred on 12-2-1995, the accused tried toassault his wife while she was reading Namaaz. Luckily she escaped and ran to herfathers house. Due to this deceased and the accused had a quarrel. The deceasedwent to the elder brother of accused and informed him about the incident and alsoasked him to advise his brother to give Talaq to his daughter. The accused whencame to knowledge about the same got angry and on the next day that is the dateof incident February 12th, 1995 at about 9:00 A.M. went to house of deceased in adrunk condition and holding a choori. He stabbed the deceased repeatedly in hisabdomen. The PW1 & 2 came to rescue of deceased, but accused assaulted themand caused some bloody injuries. Due to all this chaos and ruckus people gatheredin the neighbourbood. And someone from them informed police about the incident.And neighbours shifted deceased and PW 1 &2 to a hospital, where he was declareddead. The Station house officer of the jurisdictional Police, who visited the place ofincident found accused in an unconscious state near the house of deceased and hewas also shifted to a hospital for the treatment. Criminal case was registered underSec. 302 and 307 of IPC.

IssuesThe main issue before the Honble Court in the present appeal is to ascertain if theacts of the defendant falls under the provisions of General Exceptions.The learned counsel of the defendant tried to apply Section 85 of the IPC, falling

under Chapter IV of the code.Section 85 says about Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of

intoxication against his will. It specifically talks about a situation in which a person isintoxicated without his will or his knowledge, and there after he commits someoffence.Relying on the exceptions the Learned counsel has pleaded that since he wasincapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or whether what he was doing waswrong or contrary to law and therefore, his act falls within the exception to Section300 of the IPC, and is liable to be punished under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

8/8/2019 Case Comment Material 97

2/3

Section 304 of IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

DecisionHonble Court upheld the judgement of the Additional Sessions Court, and dismissedthe current appeal.Court used the Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Burden of proving that case

of accused comes within exceptions.It says that if a person is to claim general exception to be applied on his case, hehas the burden of proof and the court shall presume the absence of suchcircumstance.

The court while arriving upon judgment used judgment delivered in State of UttarPradesh vs. Ram Swarup And Anr., the case dealt with burden which rests upon theprosecution to establish that its case rest beyond the reasonable doubt. The courtdid not accept the precedence given by the Learned counsel for defendant citingthat the cases are surrounded and are based in different circumstances andsituations.

The Honble Court held that the accused consumed the alcohol in the morning andafter that he had reasonable time before committing such a grave offence. And

also there was no evidence to corroborate the section 85 in current case therefore itwas quashed by the Honble Court, citing the crux of the section which isinvoluntary intoxication.

Critique

The instant case is a good case law. The Honble Court has held that guilt of theaccused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Coram of Judges haspatiently heard the present appeal against the judgment of Additional Sessions

judge. And the accused has been given a reasonable and free and fair trial. Butultimately court upheld the judgement of the lower court. The Honble Court hasalso dealt with issue of reliability of the witnesses in detail and has placed reliance

on their evidence and statement.

The ratio decidendi given by the Honble Court while quashing the section 85 of IPC

was that it holds no basis to it as it specifically deals with involuntary intoxication,

the Honble Judge reiterated the judgement given by the Himachal Pradesh High

Court in Chet Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh. Honble Judge rightly pointed out

that the remedy given in Section 85 of IPC cannot be claimed by the person who

voluntary consumed alcohol and committed the grave offence inspite of having

reasonable time and opportunity for introspection.

Honble Court differentiated the case cited by the learned counsel of the defendant,Mirza Ghani Baig v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, decided by the Andhra Pradesh High

Court. And also Babu Sahiv Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra which was used in giving

the judgement in the previous case. Honble Court said that the circumstances

associated with the case were the main reason for the ultimate Judgement besides

the relevant law associated with it. And all these three case cannot be looked into

isolation and they should be looked in detailed manner. And on the basis of detail

8/8/2019 Case Comment Material 97

3/3

inspection of the facts the Honble Court said that the two cases do not hold much

ground in relevance of the present case as there was no evidence which can say

that the accused did not have intention to kill his father-in-law. On the contrary the

circumstances associated with the case clearly show that he had all intention the

force required to commit such a grave offence.

The Honble Court also discussed the provisions of Section 86 of IPC. The section

deals with an offence committed by a person during state of intoxication with the

intent or particular knowledge. The Honble Court held that the person intoxicated

will considered to be on same footing as a person who is not intoxicated, a

presumption shall be made regarding the knowledge, that an intoxicated person will

be said to have same knowledge like a sober person but in case of intention, the

Court shall gather the circumstances associated and then decide.

However, in this case, there are no such circumstances pleaded by the accused northere are circumstances available before the Court from reading of the entire

evidence that the accused had no intention to kill his father-in-law.

Honble Court to remove the doubt from the minds of defendant and his counselheld that if it is apparent from the evidence on the record, whether produced by theProsecution or by defence, that a general exception would apply, then thepresumption is removed and it is open to the Court to consider whether theevidence proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the accused come within theexception. It is settled proposition that in a criminal case, the general rule is thatthe accused person must always be presumed to be innocent and the onus ofproving everything essential to the establishment of the offence is on theprosecution. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act is an important qualification ofthis rule. The settled position in these matters is that the accused is in a much

favourable position than the prosecution, because he is not in general called uponto prove them beyond reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient if he succeeds in provinga prima facie case and establishes a reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution.