Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of 19 witnesses, 18 documents and 18 material objects, in proof of the charges framed against the accused-appellant. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are the eye-witnesses, while P.W. 8 is a circumstantial witness, The prosecution has relied upon the presence of the accused at the place of the incident and also the medical evidence, which supports the eye-witnesses' account.

4. Apart from denying the prosecution's case, the defence attempted to take shelter under Section 85 of the IPC, falling under Chapter IV of the Code. The Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the case of the prosecution and the defence pleaded, however, found him guilty of both the charges with which he was charged, and passed the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal contending that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are erroneous and not sustainable in law.

5. We have heard Sri Shankarappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri B.C. Muddappa, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. We have perused the evidence.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the evidence on record, vainly contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 is highly interested and cannot be relied upon and submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence placed on record by the prosecution in proof of the charges against the accused, he is unable to make any valid ground of insufficiency of evidence. The learned Counsel has mainly relied upon the general exception available to him under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, and submitted that the accused was fully drunk and he was incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or whether what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law and therefore, his act falls within the exception to Section 300 of the IPC, and is liable to be punished under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC. The learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Bombay High Court, which will be referred to at a later stage.

10. Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows;

"85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.--Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will".

Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under;

With great respect, we differ from the view expressed by these two Courts, as the Bombay High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court have not considered the latter part of Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, but took a decision based upon some special reasons brought on record in those cases.

16. However, in this case, there are no such circumstances pleaded by the accused nor there are circumstances available before the Court from reading of the entire evidence that the accused had no intention to kill his father-in-law. If the evidence of P.W. 2 is scrutinised carefully, it shows that the accused lives in a different street little away from the house of the deceased. On the said morning itself, he consumed alcohol and he was intoxicated and reached the house of the deceased in that intoxicated condition and having regard to the quarrel which occurred between himself and the deceased on the previous evening, especially where the deceased sent words through his elder brother to give Talaq to P.W. 2, which must have enraged him, led the accused to commit this act. There was sufficient time for the accused to think over the matter. His plea that he was assaulted by 30 or 40 people in front of the house of the deceased resulting in injuries to his body itself does not help the accused to avail the benefit of Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we find absolutely no evidence in support of this defence that the act was done under intoxication, as the intoxication was self-inflicted, but not against his will nor was it administered without his knowledge. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention canvassed for our consideration.