(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. IBRAHIM IDRIS MOl-TAMED

AC-CP-470-1966

 Principles

·  Criminal Law—Insanity and criminal responsibility—Examination of accused as regards insanity by psychiatrist after trial

Accused was convicted of murder under Penal Code. s. 251, and sentenced to death by Major Court which rejected the plea of insanity.
Held: On the basis of the evidence in the record, it is ordered that the accused must be examined by a psychiatrist who is asked to report on the accused’s state of mind at the time he committed the offence. Thereafter the proceedings of the case and the psychiatric report must be returned to this court to decide accordingly.

Judgment

Abdel Magid Imam J. December 15, 1966: —The Summary of Salient Facts as believed by the court was as follows:

The accused, a housa and a native of El Gineina, was bewildered by the belief that his wife and a certain Omer were conspiring to make the “Masasin,” Blood suckers (or people who are believed to suck other people’s blood and mysteriously devour them flesh and bones) to devour him. Labouring under this superstitious concept he asked his wife to swear before the Sharia Court to abstain from pursuing that errand. When she refused to abide, the accused in the evening of January 5, 1965, and inside their abode, stabbed his wife several times with a knife in her abdomen and neck cutting through the lung, liver and the big intestines and thus causing her instantaneous death. He dug a shallow grave——a few inches deep—dragged the body and put it into the grave. He then reported the matter to P.W.2. Hag Salih Abakar.

The accused was charged under Sudan Penal Code, s. 251, found guilty, and sentenced to death and the court refused to recommend him for mercy.

This was a straightforward case of murder, clear and simple. The court found correctly and on abundant evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased, and in fact killed her. The court also rightly rejected the defence that the accused had been under the influence of witchcraft.

In Sudan Government v. Ngerabeya Jellab, unreported, the accused pleaded as follows:

“When I killed Tugu (the deceased) I did not kill him for purposes of revenge only, lie had killed my two brothers Ngora and Wad Kayam and now he has killed my daughter Hawa. I was afraid of him for my own life and the lives of my family and dependents, it might be my turn next.”

This plea was rejected and the accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The court had also taken up the plea of insanity or behalf of the accused, and rightly so, in view of the prevailing evidence in this respect. However, the court found against the accused, and satisfied itself that he was sane at the time he committed the offence.

I harbour much doubt in respect of this finding; for though a person may eli know what he is doing and appreciate the nature of his acts, yet he may be devoid of the power of controlling them by reason of some mental disorder or psychosis. The court did not ask for the help of a psychiatrist. Though belief in ghosts and witchcraft may not be evidence of insanity in a primitive society, yet there is evidence to show that the accused was abnormal. There is evidence also that he is visited during intervals with fits of insanity. In the morning of the event the accused brought about a disused tyre and bits of clothes and set them on fire without apparent cause, inside his own abode. The manner in which the accused killedthe deceased and left her body uncovered in that shallow grave raises a big question mark.

For the above reasons explained, the record of this case should be sent to th senior psychiatrist who is asked to report on accused’s mental capacities after reading the papers and examining the accused. He is also asked to keep the case in safe custody for purposes of returning it intact—reference is made to Sudan Government v. Adam Mura Ahu Flamad, AC-CP-361-1960, (1961) S.L.J.R. 232—together with his recort as soon as possible.