Case No.:

AC-CP-110-1956

Court:

Major Court Confirmation

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Drunkenness—Not a defence unless amounting to temporary insanity Criminal Law—Penal Code, s. 260—De fence of grave and sudden provocation to attempted murder

Accused stabbed the complainant intending to cause her death. The accused pleads drunkenness and grave and sudden provocation as defences to the charge of attempted murder.
Held: Drunkenness is not a defence unless it reaches the stage of temporary insanity—delirium tremens.
Obiter dictum : In trials for attempted murder, court must examine defence of grave and sudden provocation under Penal Code, s. 260.

Judgment

 )MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION(

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. DENG MANGUEN

AC-CP-110-1956

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. June 6, 1956 :—I have confirmed the Finding and Sentence.

Again in this case, as in another case presided over by the Resident Magistrate Wau, No. BGP-41-C-5-1956, the reasons for finding were not correctly given as is directed in Criminal Courts Circular No. 11. I refer to page 17 of the record in this case.

The first question put by the court was:

“Did the accused commit the offence? ”

‘This is a general issue which should not have been framed. The issue must be specific and not general.

The points for determination for this case should have been as follows:

(1) Did the accused stab the complainant with a knife on the leg and neck?

The answer is “Yes.” This is admitted by the accused and is supported by sufficient evidence.

(2) Did accused intend to cause death of complainant or knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act?

The answer is “Yes.” Accused stabbed the complainant on a vital part of the body and there is no doubt that his intention was to cause her death. She only survived by mere luck.

The accused pleads that there was grave and sudden provocation which might have reduced the offence of attempted murder to an offence under Penal Code,s 260, which is “ attempted culpable homicide not murder.” This is a point which ought to have been examined and argued by the

Court

On the evidence before the court I do not think that there was grave provocation which would have reduced this offence to one under Penal Code, s. 260.

The question of drunkenness does not come into reasons for finding, unless it reaches the stage of temporary insanity—delirium tremens.

Drunkenness may be taken in certain cases as a mitigating factor in assessing the sentence only. Again I draw the attention rl1 to the fact that the Summary of Salient Facts should be set out as is directed in Criminal Courts Circular No. i i. It should not come under the Note on Sentence. The only relevant points which come under the Note on Sentence is on the back of page 50 of these proceedings which I marked in pencil on the margin.