Case No.:

AC-CP-93-1958

Court:

Major Court Confirmation

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Penal Code, s. 50—Insanity and criminal responsibility

·  Criminal Law — Penal Code. s. 50—Insanity and criminal responsibility—lrresistible impulse

Accused was tried and convicted of attempted murder. He pleaded insanity.
Held: (1) To prove that he was ‘ insane,” accused must prove that at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
(2) The insanity must affect the accused’s ability to appreciate the nature of the particular act with which he is charged.

(3) To lack the power of controlling acts means to suffer from irresistible impulse

Judgment

)MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION(

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. ABDEL WAHAB ABDEL SAKHI

AC-CP-93-1958

Advocate: Ahmed Soleiman………. for the accused

M. A. Abu Rannat Cf. May 9, 1958:— The facts are short and simple.

On September 8, 1957, in the morning, the accused stabbed the complainant, Kenneth Sydney Grainger, with a sharp knife, in the belly. The complainant’s condition was serious and he was lucky that he survived. The accused further admits that he had on the previous day bought the knife, for the purpose of committing the offence. He also admits that he stabbed the complainant because the latter had done him down by transferring him from Khartoum to Fasher and by dismissing him from a permanent job and that he was with some difficulty re-engaged as a daily paid labourer. It is also admitted that accused had thrown red pepper at complainant’s eyes and that an  information was lodged with the police in respect of that act.

The accused’s act amounts to attempted murder unless it can be proved that, at the time of the commission of the offence , he did not possess the power of appreciating the nature of his acts or controlling them by reason of permanent or temporary insanity or mental infirmity.

It is contended by accused’s advocate that ‘the report of Dr. Taha Baashar shows that the accused was insane at the time of the act of the stabbing. The doctor stated that when he saw the accused on September 9 , 1957. The accused was suffering from mental disorder, but he became gradually normal. Dr. Taha Baashar added that he knew the history of the accused who was treated by him in October, 5952, and on December 8, 5956. The doctor is of the opinion that accused was then labouring under illness of false pretence.

To establish a detence on the ground of insanity, it must clearly be proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know he was doing what was wrong. The mere fact that on former occasions the accused had been occasionally subject to insane delusions, or had suffered from derangement of the mind’, or that subsequently he had at times behaved like a mentally deficient person is per Se insufficient to bring his case within the exemption.

The evidence clearly shows that the accused knew what he was doing. His act was deliberate, and he was consistent in his own statement.

The law does not deny that a person with delusions may be insane, but refuses to agree that his insanity must necessarily affect his judgment in a particular act. If therefore a person . The subject of a delusion. commits an illegal act which has no relationship to his particular delusion, the law considers him as responsible for such act as if he were sane.

As to control of the act, this refers to cases of irresistible or unresisted impulse. It is known that crimes are the result of temptation or impulses that are not and it is absurd to expect any court to accept a medical opinion that an act was the result of an irresistible impulse beyond the control of the patient without corroborative evidence.

In my view the accused was fully responsible for his act and I confirm both the finding and sentence.

[Editor's note: see Sudan Government v. Mousa Adam Ishag (I958) S.L.J.R. 1, and Criminal Court Circular No. 2!, reissued June 15. 1952, on Insanity and Criminal Responsibility ] .