REPORT (MAJOR COURT) * SUDAN GOVERNMENT vs. ABDULLAH MUKHTAR NUR DC-Maj. Ct.-3-57 Principles Criminal law—Murder—Sudan Penal Code, s. 251—Accused killed deceased thinking she was a ghost—Sudan Penal Code, s. 44 It is a good defence to a charge of murder that the accused acted under a genuine belief that the deceased was a ghost. Judgment Judgment The accused is a young man of twenty. He lived in Liat Village lying in the southern area of Um Kaddada district. The deceased was an old woman who lived in another village in the same district, and had no relations or previous introduction with the accused before the present incident. The accused heard from his mother and the villagers that there was a ghost (Afrieta) in the area and it fought with a certain Mohamed Rahma (P.W.2). On the night of 26th April 1956 at Sahoor time (the 26th April being the 14th night of the Holy month of Ramadan) the accused rode his donkey and went to the valley in search of a missing cow. He was on his way to the village when he met a figure walking towards him dressed in black and carrying a stick. The accused spoke to the figure, which refused to reply. He became frightened, took the figure for the ghost and started beating it with a stick until it fell motionless to the ground. The accused then went to the village and broke the news to the villagers. They went with him to the scene to find that the “ghost” was none other than the old woman Nur Zamal. She was dead. The accused was committed for trial under section 251, S.P.C. (murder). He was found not guilty of any offence and discharged. 15th January 1957. Abdul Rahim P.J. (President of the Major Court) in course of judgment said: —-In this case we believe the statement of the accused that he mistook the deceased for a ghost which he heard about in the village. His allegation was supported by P.W.3 and P.W.6. In the Sitting at Um Kaddada, Darfur Province. S.L.J.R.—2 meantime it was proved by the evidence of P.W.2 that he saw a ghost himself and talked about it to P.W.1, the President of the Native Court, who confirmed the superstition about the ghosts and that he saw moving fires in the valleys. It was also proved that there was no relation whatsoever between the parties before the incident. The evidence is clear that a great amount of criminal force was used. The accused was frightened and imagined that he had met the ghost. He was no doubt influenced by the tales he heard about the ghost in the district. It was proved that the deceased was wearing a black cloth and was carrying a long stick, and that she was walking after midnight to her house. Considering these facts we are satisfied that the accused had grounds for believing he was dealing with a ghost. After the fright his behavior was so simple that he went to the village and proudly broke the news of his victory. From this act we infer that the accused acted in good faith and in the honest belief that he killed the ghost without any intention of killing a human being. The accused found himself in danger and was driven by the instinct of self- preservation to act this way. He was labouring under the belief that he was fighting a ghost. Gour at p. 249 mentioned a case in which a father killed his son believing him to be a tiger and the father was acquitted from a charge of murder (Chiranjee vs. State).1 There is also the case of Waryam Singh2 mentioned at p. 249 of the 1955 edition. In this case the accused went with his wife at night to the grave of her child, who had died the previous month, to have a wash. She was under the belief that if she did so her future children would live. While her husband was pouring water over her, he saw a figure which he mistook for a ghost, and beat it to death. The husband was acquitted as he had no intention of killing a human being. At page 148 of Ratanlal, Law of Crime (1948 edition), it is stated that a mistake of fact is a good defence. He mentioned this example: —if a man for instance intending to kill a thief in his own house kills a member of his family by mistake, he will be guilty of no offence. Accordingly we are satisfied that the act of the accused is not an offence and he should be set at liberty under section 44 of the Sudan Penal Code. On Reference for Confirmation (AC-CP-9 –57) the finding of not guilty was confirmed. 9th February 1957. R. C. Soni j.: —In my opinion the acquittal is justified. There are cases quoted by the learned President in which in India acquittals were made on the ground of a mistake of fact, and a man killing his son in the mistaken belief of meeting a tiger, etc. Last year we had a similar case (I now forget where it came from) and the acquittal 1- (1926) L. 554. 2- I.L.R. 1952 Nag. 348. was upheld. There is a comment on acquittal in Glanville Williams’ book on Criminal Law at p. 91. The case quoted in footnote 12 is Waryam Singh’s case quoted by the President. I am of the opinion that the Court was right in acquitting. M. A. Abu Rannat C.J.: —I agree. Finding confirmed. (Acquittal confirmed)