SUDAN GOVERNMEN vs. HASSAX TALFAN HASSAN

(AG-C V- 126-1936)

Principles

·  Criminal Law: murder -S.P.C. Section 251-grave and sudden provocation-S.P.C. S 249(I) right of private defenceS.P.C.  Section 249 (2)

Criminal Law: murder -S.P.C. Section 251-grave and sudden provocation-S.P.C. S 249(I) right of private defenceS.P.C.  Section 249 (2)
Judgment

The deceased suspected the accused of having illicit relations with his wife and warned his wife that he did not like to see the accused in his house. The accused was seen by the deceased to speak to the wife and was struck by the deceased with a light stick. The accused drew his knife and stabbed the deceased. Accused then took the deceased’s knife from its sheath and stabbed the deceased with both knives. The deceased died two days later from his injuries.

Held: (1) Accused’s reaction to the attack with a light stick did not justify retaliation with a knife, the retaliation must bear some relation to the provocation.

(2) The accused having disarmed the deceased inflicted more harm than  is necessary for the purpose of defence.

(3) The accused guilty of murder, findings and sentence confirmed.

Reference for confirmation under Section 251 Sudan Code of Criminal Procedure.

The facts are fully set out in the note on confirmation.

Abu Rannat C.j. : - The facts are short and simple.

The deceased had suspected the accused of having illicit relations with his wife. He warned his wife that he did not like to see the accused in his house.

On the day of the incident, in the morning, the accused went to deceased’s house. He first inquired of the presence of the deceased’s mother-in-law and later he asked about deceased’s wife. He was told that the deceased’s wife went to the well to get water. He went to the well, and on the road he met deceased’s wife and they began to speak to each other. The deceased saw them talking together, and ran after the accused. He warned the accused that he was going to attack him. The deceased was carrying a light stick and he struck the accused with it on the shoulder. The accused immediately drew his knife and stabbed the deceased first on his lip. Then he started stabbing him

repeatedly all over his body. He inflicted a considerable number of wounds on the deceased.

The medical report shows that he inflicted ten wounds. Some of them were superficial but at least two were fatal.

There are two possible defences. The first defence is that the accused was acting under grave and sudden provocation, given to him by  the deceased. The evidence shows that the deceased overtook the accused and  struck him over the shoulder with a light stick. Then immediately the accused drew his own knife and stabbed the deceased. He also drew the deceased’s knife and used it in stabbing the deceased.

To reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the offender must show first that he was deprived of self- control and secondly that that deprivation, was caused by provocation, which in the opinion of the Court, was both grave and sudden. The Court must ask themselves whether the provocation which they, as reasonable men, will regard as sufficiently grave, mitigated the actual killing of the deceased. The words ‘grave’ and ‘sudden’ are both of them relative terms and  must, at least, to a great extent be decided by comparing the nature of the provocation with that of the retaliatory act. It is impossible to determine whether the provocation was grave without at the same time considering the act which resulted from the provocation otherwise some quite minor or trival provocation might be thought to excuse the use of a deadly weapon. A blow with a light stick is undoubtedly provocation, and a provocation which may cause the sufferer to lose a degree of control, but will not excuse the use of a deadly weapon or justify the stabbing of a person ten times with a deadly weapon. The retaliation must bear some relation to the provocation. ‘In my view this defence fails.

The other possible line of defence is that the accused was acting in exercise of his right of private defence. This defence also fails because such a right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict, for the purpose of defence. The accused disarmed the deceased and stabbed him all over the body and was still intending to stab him until he was stopped by the deceased’s wife.

In my opinion murder is proved and I confirm the finding of murder and death sentence.