Case No.:

AC-CP-109-1956

Court:

Major Court Confirmation

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Penal Code. s. 254 –Death caused when intention is to cause hurt—. Distinguished from murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder

·  Criminal law—Penal Code, s. 246, Explanation 2 - probable result of proper medical care in homicide cases

Accused hit the deceased on the head with a fairly heavy stick. Deceased failed to obtain medical care which would have saved his life, and he died from the blow. Accused was convicted of Causing Grievous Hurt under Penal Code. 5. 278.
Held: (i) It death result from a blow by the accused not intended to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, but intend to cause hurt or grievous hurt, the accused should be convicted under Penal Code. s. 254. not Penal Code. s. 278.

(ii) The person causing injury which causes death shall be deemed to cause death although proper medical care might have prevented death. Penal Code, s. 246. Explanation 2.

Judgment

(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNME v. AKEC MAGOL

AC-CP-109-1956

M. A. Abu C.J. June 13. 1956:—I am sending this case back for the revision of the finding. The facts were correctly found by the court, but the court failed to frame the correct points for determination. I draw the attention of the President to Criminal Courts Circular No.11, page 34. where the points for the determination of homicide cases are set out.

In this particular case the points should have been as follows:

(i) Did the accused on or about October 25. 1955. hit the deceased with a stick?

The answer in this case should be Yes.”

(2) Did the accused thereby cause deceased’s death?

The answer should also be in the affirmative.

It is clear from the medical evidence (page 8 of the record) that the death of the deceased is attributed to the blow delivered by the accused. It is the causa causans and not causa sine qua non.

The fact that the deceased failed to attend for medical care, and that if proper medical care was given at an earlier time, he would have lived, does not alter the position. I refer to Penal Code, s. 246, Explanation 2, which answers this point.

(3) Did the accused intend to cause deceased’s death or knew at the time when she acted that death would be the probable and not only a likely consequence of her act?

On the evidence before the court the answer should be “No.” This means that the offence is not murder.

 (4) Did the accused either intend to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or knew at the time when she acted that death would be a likely consequence of her act?

In my view the answer to this point should be “Yes.”

The accused hit the deceased on the head with a fairly heavy stick. The stick weighs I rotl and 8½ wagias. To strike a man with such a formidable weapon on the head, the accused must have at least known that death was a likely consequence of such a blow. This means hat the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Penal Code, s. 253.(

But assuming that the answer to this point was “No,” the court ought to have convicted the accused under Penal Code, s. 254.

In cases where the death of any person is caused by an act not amounting to culpable homicide, but with the intention of causing hurt or grievous hurt, he should be convicted under Penal Code, S. 254. This section does not exist in the Indian Criminal Law. We have borrowed it from Egypt with a view to covering such cases as is explained above.

I direct, that the court shoula study these points and revise its finding on the light of this note.

Sentence

The sentence may be adequate even if the accused is found guilty under Penal Code, S. 253. There are mitigating circumstances which warrant such a light sentence.