Case No.:

AC-CP.110.1958

Court:

Major Court Confirmation

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Penal Code, s. 5 voluntary influence of hashish—No defence

The fact that the accused was under the influence of voluntarily smoked hashish at the time of the killing is no defence to the charge of murder, although it may mitigate punishment.

Judgment

(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. ABDO SULEIMAN KNURl

AC-CP.110.1958

M. A. Abu Rannat . J . May 29, 1958 facts set out in the Summary of Salient Facts are supported by sufficient evidence. It is clear from these facts that the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and thereby caused his death.

From the nature of the wound and the weapon used it can safely be inferred that the accused knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act. Prima facie accused committed murder.

The only possible defence is that the accused did not possess the power of appreciating the nature of his acts or of controlling them by reason of intoxication caused by hashish administered to him against his will or without his knowledge.

The evidence shows that the accused was smoking hashish at the time he stabbed the deceased, but it was not established that that hashish was administered to him against his wil1 He and the wedding party were all voluntarily smoking hashish and therefore Penal Code, s. 50 (b), does not apply to this particular case.

In my view murder is proved and , the finding of murder

Sentence

The court recommended the accused to mercy and gave long reasons which appear on pages 38—39 of the record. The Governor also recommends the commutation of the death sentence.

In England the established practice of recommending the commutation of the death penalty is used in certain categories of cases. Among such cases are unpremeditated murders committed in some sudden excess of frenzy where the murderer has previously had no evil animus towards his victim, or murders committed in a state of drunkenness falling short of a legal defence, especially if the murderer is a man of hitherto good character.

In this particular case it ha been proved that there was no enmity between the accused and deceased and that the accused was of good character and that the whole affair took place suddenly.

It appears from the record of the case that the accused must have been intoxicated by smoking hashish. Accused alleged that he had drunk a bottle of sherry, but the evidence does not support this. I believe that his mind was affected by the hashish smoking.

In fact I am assailed with doubts as to whether to execute the death sentence or not, but as I have the recommendation by an experienced judge for commutation and also the recommendation by the Governor. I feel that the sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life.

)