Reports

 SUDAN GOVERNMENT vs. MOUSA ADAM ISHAG

 AC-CP-337-1958

Principles

·  Criminal law-Murder-Section 251 Sudan Penal Code-Insanity. Section 50 of the Sudan Penal Code-Section 284.C.C.P-criminal Court circular No.32.

The “nature” of an act includes the “quality” of the act. 
“Aman is ignorant of the nature of his act when he is ignorant of the operation of external agencies which he brings into play.
Aman is ignorant of the quality of his act “if he knows the result which will follow, but is incapable of appreciating the elementary principles which make up the heinous and shocking charater of that result.
Schizophrenia constitutes instanity or mental infirmity under the Sudan Penal Code, section 50.

Judgment

 The Accused was a man of 44-married with 2 childeren. He had left his wife and children some 10 years previously and came to work in the Gezira. He had a long history of mental instability. He was under a delusion that wherever he went people andchidlren abused him and called him names. At first he lived in Fidesi village. But he was obsessed with the delusion that the people of fidesi wanted to kill him. Anoldman advised him to go to another village which he did. In this village (called thevillage of Omar El Medani) he worked in cotton picking but his persecution mania became worse. On the day of the incident he left this last mentioned village and wandered aimlessly. He reached “Farig Arab” village. He was carrying a spear, aknife and a box of macthes. Then he did the following:- (1) set fire to a Guttiyah belonging to one Mohd. Abdul Moula. (2)  He stabbed 3 times an old man of sixty who tried to put out the fire. (3) Stabbed the Deceased with his spear and when the Deceased snatched the spear from Accused’s hand, the latter drew his knife and struck him. (4) he ran and set fire to two more Guttiyahs. (5) He succeeded in wounding at least two others before he was overpowered.

There was no relation whatsoever between the Accused and the inhabitants of the village where the incident occurred.

A major Court at Hass Heissa found the Accused guilty of murder under section 251 of the S.P.C. The confirming authority altered the finding of guilty under section 251 to a finding that Accused killed the Deceased but was at the time of unsound mind. The Accused was referred to the Governor under section 284, C.C.P.

Note by the Chief Justice:-

24th November 1958. M.A. Abu Rannat C.J. :-

The real point in issue is whether the Accused was insane at the time he was stabbing the Deceased.

The defence of insanity is contained in section 50 of the Penal Code.

Section 50 reads:-

“No act is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it did not possess the power of appreciating the nature of his acts or of controlling them by reason of.

(a)             permanent or temporary insanity or mental infirming. Or

(b)            intoxication caused by any substance administered to him against his will or without his knowledge.”

In this case we are concerned with (a) only.

I think it is fitting to mention here that our law is different from India and England in detail although the result may be the same. For example we do not recognise the English and Indian test of lack or knowledge that the act he does is wrong or contrary to law. Section 50 lays down two tests either of which is conclusive.

The section speaks of the “nature” which includes “quality.” A man is said to be ignorant of the nature of his act when he is ignorant of the operation of external agencies which he brings inot play-e.g. an idiot firing a gun looking upon it as a harmless toy. He is ignorant of the quality of his act if he knows the result which will follow, but he is incapalbe of appreciating the elementary prinicples which make up the heinous and shocking character of that result-e.g. an idiot unable to preceive the different between shooting a man and a monkey.

The Court found that at the time of stabbing, the Accused was labouring under a defect of reason from disease of the mind known as “schizophrenia”. This is a complete defence under section 50 . If the Accused was mad or sane at other time is irrelevant under this section.

The reasons given by the Court on p.43 of record where it says “we are convinced that  this form of insanity made the Accused possessed of a delusion that he was persecuted by the people wherever he went” show at least that he was suffering from temporary insanity.

I therefore alter the finding of guilty under section 251 of the Penal Code to a finding that the Accused killed the Deceased, but was at the time of unsound mind. The Court then forward the Accused to the 

Governor and the Govenor should follow the procedure laid down in Criminal Court Circular No.32.

I wish to point out that such a patient should never be released from his custody as he may any time commit another serious crime.

(Order accordingly)