|Citation||AIR 1961 SC 998|
|Date of Judgment||25/01/1961|
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Type||14 Cr. Appeal Rep. 48|
|Appellant||State of MP|
|Bench||Justice AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALASARKAR, A.K.|
|Referred||Section- 84, 304 of IPC, 1860.|
FACTS OF THE CASE
The accused, Ahamadullah, was a 25-year-old man who was married to the deceased’s daughter. The deceased was a widow and had a grudge against Ahamadullah because he had not been able to provide for his wife. The accused, Ahamadullah, was charged with the murder (Section 302 of I.P.C of his mother-in-law under. The prosecution case was that the accused had a grudge against the deceased and had planned to kill her. On the night of the murder, the accused went to the deceased’s house with a torch and a knife. He found the deceased asleep and severed her head from her body. The accused then confessed to the crime and said that he had been suffering from an epileptic type of insanity for the past few years.
Whether the accused was entitled to an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
The arguments of the accused’s counsel and the prosecution were as follows:
The accused’s counsel argued that the accused was suffering from an epileptic type of insanity and that he was not aware of the nature and consequences of his actions when he committed the murder. He also argued that the accused had a history of mental illness and that he had been admitted to a mental hospital in the past.
The prosecution argued that the accused was not insane and that he had planned and executed the murder in a cold-blooded manner. They pointed out that the accused had gone to the deceased’s house with a torch and a knife, which showed that he had premeditated. They also argued that the accused had confessed to the crime and had not raised the defense of insanity at the time of his arrest.
The Supreme Court held that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind must be established is the time when the crime is committed. In this case, there was nothing on the record to show that the accused was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to the law at the time of the murder. Therefore, the accused was not entitled to an acquittal on the grounds of unsoundness of mind.
The Supreme Court also held that the mere fact that the accused had a grudge against the deceased and had planned the murder did not necessarily mean that he was not insane. The accused’s mental condition had to be considered as a whole, and there was no evidence to show that he was not insane at the time of the murder.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.
This Article is written by Anirudh Modi of Maharishi University of Information Technology, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, an intern at Legal Vidhya.