LAWS(PVC)-1937-2-55

EMPEROR Vs. GEDKA GOALA

Decided On February 24, 1937
EMPEROR Appellant
V/S
GEDKA GOALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gedka Goala was put on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Purnea and four assessors charged with murder of his wife Musammat Reshmi, his daughters Budhsar and Dilsar and his son Sadhu, with causing grievous hurt to his son Budhu and with causing hurt to his Mother Musammat Neno. The accused was living in Patharghatti, and on Friday, June 19, 1936, he was in his own house with his wife Reshmi, his daughters Budhsar and Dilsar and his sons Budhu and Sudhu. He attacked all these persons with a heavy cutting knife dao. He was interrupted by the return to his house of his mother Neno whom also he attacked and wounded with the dao. The next to come was his brother-in-law Nunu Lal, seeing whom he said he had killed others and would kill him (Nunu Lal) too. Nunu Lal saved himself by flight. Gedka then picked up the boy Budhu and went out carrying him to the house of Ahmad Ali. He asked Ahmad Ali for water and poison to kill himself as he had finished everybody" but went away to Murhi Bechi to the house of his brother Ledka announcing his intention of killing the latter and his wife. They, however, concealed themselves. At about 3 P.M. he came to Bibiganj where he met an excise peon Mir Ekbal who had the (sic) of mind to disarm and arrest the accused and made him over to Kharkhara Manjhi, Dafadar, along with the bloodstained knife. The occurrence was proved by the boy Budhu Gope, who survived his injuries and accused's mother Neno who was not seriously wounded and accused's father Hathia and the subsequent movements of the accused by Ahmad Ali, Mir Ekbal and Kharkhara Manjhi.

(2.) The medical evidence proved that the death of the wife, two daughters and son was due to incised injuries inflicted with a sharp weapon such as the dao produced (Ex. 2) and the injuries on Neno and Budhu could be inflicted by the same weapon. The accused made a confession before a Magistrate on June 22, 1936, but at the trial his statement is that he was not in his senses and does not know what he did and what he did not do and cannot remember whether he made a confession. The Sessions Judge and all four assessors were of opinion that the facts were proved and no other view of the case is possible and the only defence that could be taken at the trial was that by reason of unsoundness of mind the accused was not responsible for his actions. This defence was accepted by the Sessions Judge in agreement with all the assessors and the learned Judge on finding that the accused committed the acts charged but is not guilty in view of the provisions of Section 84, Indian Penal Code, acquitted the accused but has directed that he be detained in custody pending orders from the Local Government under Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code. The Local Government have preferred this appeal, and it is contended that the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded on a wrong view of the law regarding criminal responsibility, that it should have been held that the accused at the time of doing the acts knew what he was about and was liable to be convicted. For the respondent it has not been contended that accused did not do the acts charged and the evidence abundantly establishes those facts. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether the Court below was right in the view taken regarding the absence of criminal responsibility by reason of unsoundness of mind. The law is in Section 84, Indian Indian Penal Code: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

(3.) This provision was examined in Queen Empress V/s. Kedar Nasyar Shah 23 C 604, a leading case which has been repeatedly followed. The learned Judges point out that the rule is in substance the same as that laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords in Daniel M Naghten's case (1843) 10 C & F 200 : 3 Scott. NR 595 : 1 C & K 30 : 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847 : 59 RR 85. It is pointed out that: Insanity affects not only the cognitive faculties of the mind which guide our actions, but also our emotions which prompt our actions and the will by which our actions are performed.