MIRZA GHANI BAIG V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Bench:

• N.Y.Hanumanthappa
• Neelam Sanjiva Reddy

Petitioner: Mirza Ghani Baig
Respondent: State Of Andhra Pradesh

Issue:

Whether the offence committed by the petitioner fell under section 302 or 304 IPC having regard to the provisions of section 86 of the IPC?

Enroll the Course on 'The Indian Penal Code IPC' by Mr. V.K Maheshwari - Click Here

Facts:

• The accused came to the house in a drunken state and after taking food, he was about to leave the house.

• When she objected for the same, then the accused became angry, brought a kerosene tin, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire.

• When she raised cries and the elder brother of the accused and his brother - in - law came and covered her with a blanket and put out the flames and took her to the hospital and admitted her in the hospital.

• The trial court then convicted the accused under section 302 IPC.

• An appeal was then filed by the accused.

Appellant’s Contentions:

• The trial court failed to take into consideration that witnesses who gave evidence in support of the prosecution case were interested in that they were close relatives of the deceased.

• At the time of causing the incident, the accused was drunk and he was not in a position to understand what he was doing.

• The accused also received burn injuries and was in the hospital for about two months.

Judgment:

• The court held that under section 86 it has to be proved that in spite of drunkenness the person had the intention to commit the act forbidden by law or that he had the knowledge that on committing the said act, it will result in the death of the person on whom he has attacked.

• The court further observed that to invoke section 86 the state of intoxication must make the person incapable of understanding. The burden to prove that he could not form any intention of the alleged offence will be upon the accused.

• In a case where the person drunk is unable to form an intention to kill, though he had the knowledge that such an act will be dangerous, it will amount to committing an offence of culpable homicide.

• So far as knowledge is concerned the standard of test is the same as in the case of intention. As far as intention is concerned, it has to be gathered from various surrounding factors.

• In the present case , the accused was drunk at the time of causing the death of his wife by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire, it cannot be said that he was beside his mind altogether at the time of the incident.

• Assoon as he realised his folly, he tried to extinguish the fire and sustained burn injuries and he was also in the hospital for the said injuries for about two months.

• The court observed that on previous occasions also when the accused used to come home drunk, he never treated the deceased cruelly or harassed her to bring dowry.

• Therefore, from the above points, the court held that though he was in a drunken condition, there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, yet he had the knowledge that such an act will definitely be dangerous to the life of the deceased.

• Hence the conviction by the below court under section 302 IPCwas set aside and in its place the accused was convictedunder section 304 part -ii IPC.