STATE OF ASSAM Vs. INUSH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE occurrence which had taken place on 6 -9 -1977 at about 7 P. M. in the house of Gobinda Paul, P, W. 2, and which had seen the death of Nowel at the hand of Inush, accused, is not in dispute. What really calls for our decision is as to whether the offence would attract the mischief of Section 302, or would come down to Section 304 IPC

(2.) LET the skeletal facts be noted. Both Inush and Nowel were working as ploughmen of P.W. 2. On the date of occurrence at about 7 P. M., P.W. 1 was told by his mother that Nowel was being chased by somebody. The first impression was that perhaps some dacoit was doing so. A hue and cry was raised. On going inside the house of Nowel, he was found lying on the ground with injury on his abdomen. On being asked, Nowel said that he had been stabbed by Inush with a dagger, whereafter the latter had fled away. Inush came back next morning and on being asked by P. Ws. 3 and 5, he admitted that he had assaulted Nowel as there was some quarrel between them, and Nowel had said that he would assault Inush. The matter was brought to the notice of police on the same night and next day morning, the police went to the scene, arrested the accused and seized a small dagger containing some bloodstains on being produced by the accused. The accused was forwarded to the Court on 8 -9 -1977 when his confession was also recorded which has not been retracted by the accused.

(3.) SHRI Pathak, who has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused, has submitted that the death was caused by gnash under soms irresistible impulse inasmuch as he had developed a fear psychosis that Nowel would kill him and so to protect himself he could not resist stabbing of Nowel. A Division Bench of this Court in Siddheswari v. State of Assam, 1981 Cri LJ 1005, had an occasion to discuss as to when defence of impulsive insanity could be available to an accused. As pointed out therein (at p. 1008): The mental impulse which had led to the commission of the crime has to be irresistible, and not only unresisted, to regard the same as 'impulsive insanity'. The mere fact that it was committed on a sudden impulse is not sufficient in this context. It is difficult for us to hold on the facts of this case that the offence had been committed by Inush under any impulsive insanity, as what we know from his confessional statement as well as what is stated before the Court is about a quarrel which had taken place a few hours before the occurrence. We do not think if on the basis of this lone quarrel it can be held that what Inush had done was irresistible. We, therefore, rule out the applicability of Section 84 of the Penal Code to protect the accused.