Case No.:

AC-CP-231-1956

Court:

Major Court Confirmation

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Penal Code. s. 50 (a)—Defence of insanity—Killing under paranoiac delusions

 Accused was bitten by a snake and thereafter at frequent intervals had paranoiac delusions that enemies wished to beat and kill him. Possessed by such a delusion, accused wildly killed one man and wounded others. The court held that he was not guilty by reason of insanity, under Penal Code, s. 50 (a)

Judgment

(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. GABRA ANGELLO DAFAALLA

AC-CP-231-1956

Salient facts found by Abdel Rahman Yousif, Magistrate of the First Class, President of the Major Court Convened at Raseres, June 20, 1956:— The accused is Nuwabi who was hired as a shepherd by a certain Arab cattle-owner, namely, Hamid Ibrahim (P.W. 8), for a considerable time. As such, he used to lodge and board at Umm Tabarib village with his employer’s people. However, it happened once that the accused was bitten by a snake during the fulfillment of the activity dictated by his occupation as a shepherd. Consequently as a result of this incident, the accused became terribly sick and did only resort to native treatment, This matter did relieve the accused from his pains, but nevertheless it left its effects upon the proper functioning of his mind. He commenced to see deluded visions in the sense of being occupied by an obscure feeling of his being beset by enemies whose sole purpose was to beat and kill him. Indeed it was due to this unfortunate element that the said episodes of this incident did occur.

It happened on the day preceding the day that witnessed this mishap that the accused had resorted to a relative of his by name of Salam Omer (P.W. 2), at another village, complaining of this affair that began to annoy him terribly., As a matter of fact, this feeling was not in the nature of permanence, but used to visit the accused regularly at frequent intervals.

However, that relative had suggested and the accused had approved that the accused was to be taken to his father, a “Cogour,” at his Jebel for a drastically effectual treatment. The accused stayed there for only one night until he was swept by that strange sensation. Henceforth, he became overcome by agitation and fear, and thus began to r his way in a desperate escape from his delusory enemies. The attempts of that relative in stopping him were unsuccessful and without any avail. Thus the accused returned to his employer’s village apparently quite calm and self-composed.

On November 5, 1954, the day of the incident, at about p.m., the aforesaid relative had arrived at Umm Tabarib village in an endeavour to take the accused to his father at his Jebel for treatment. Three persons had acted as companions as well as guides to the village, namely, the deceased, Mohamed Ummeya (P.W. 3) and El Amin Gaidome (P.W.5). Upon their arrival they sat down on two beds with a certain resident of the village by name of El Gebish Hammoda (P.W. 6), within vision of an elderly villager by name of Hammoda Haroun (P.W. 7). Thereafter the said relative called for the accused who responded to this calling, cleaning a branch of a tree with a knife in a nervous and agitated condition. The purpose and intention of that relative was conveyed to the accused in his own Nuba dialect, but it did not meet his concurrence and approval. Consequently he took a rifle which was nearby and began to knock at it with his knife, very much excited and perplexed. Fortunately it was held from him and taken away. The relative attempted once more to persuade the accused to accompany him. At this particular moment, it seems that the accused was swept tremendously by that strange delusion of regarding all the people as his bitter enemies. Thereupon he rushed towards his relative and stabbed him seriously on the right de as well as injuring him slightly on the right forearm, using his knife as a weapon (exhibit, page 2).

All that were present in the scene began to run for their life. However the accused turned and was able to stab Mohamed Ummeya on his throat. Thereafter he ran after the deceased for a considerable space until he reached him and stabbed him violently on his belly to death. Hence he returned, running with his blood-.blotted knife In his hand, adopting a madly excited attitude. He rushed towards some children, intending thereby to kill them, but he was stopped by the fear of the use of a heavy stick which was earned by a certain Malta Mohamed (P.W. 4). Thus

he diverted towards Mohamed Ummeya once mere but the said parson was able to throw the knife from his hand by beating him with the back of an axe. However, ultimately, all that were present got held of the accused in order to stop him from any further mad attacks. The accused

struggled violently so as to release himself to the extent that he was able to pull out Ateita’s knife (exhibit. page 2) and injured him with it on his back and right forearm. Lastly this sad affair came to its conclusive end when accused was thrown to the ground and bound with a rope.

R. C. Soni J. October 3, 1956:—I have read the proceedings. I agree with the finding that the accused at the time the murder was committed was not responsible for his acts on account of his mental condition.

M. I. El Nur, Acting C.J. October 4, 1956:—I agree and have confirmed the finding accordingly.