Case Analysis: Nanhe v. State of U.P. (2023) | Intoxication in Murder Case

The 'Case Analysis: Nanhe v. State of U.P. (2023)' involves the apex court's decision, which, after a comprehensive examination of the convict's intoxication during the incident, upheld his murder conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Case Title: Nanhe v. State of U.P.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Criminal Appeal No.2791 of 2023

Judge: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Abhay S. Oka 

Date of Judgment: 21st November, 2023

Facts

The case concerns a shooting that was done on 30 May 2007. In the said shooting there was 1 casualty whose name was Saddam Hussain (son of the informant- Mohd. Ali) and 1 was injured that was Mahendra. For this incident two cases were filed- one under Section 304 and 308 of the IPC; another one under Section 25 for not verifying digital signature under Arms Act, 1959. The accused in this case was ‘Nanhe’.

For this incident, the Trial Court post clubbing both the cases sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302, along with a fine of Rs. 5000. Moreover, the accused was also held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was given 2 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000. This judgement was affirmed by the High Court and so the convict appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

The main ground for appeal was that the convict was trying to prove that since he was highly intoxicated during the shooting, Saddam Hussain was shot dead. He stated that he had no intention of killing him and that the same was a mere accident which was caused at the moment due to his intoxication. If this contention is accepted by the court, then the case would naturally fall under Part II of Section 304 and not under Section 302 under which the person was punished.

Issue

The issue before the apex court is to ascertain whether the offence committed by the convict (murder under Section 302) is liable to be reduced to culpable homicide amounting to murder (under Section 304 - Part II) as he had no intention to kill the deceased and had rather shot his gun at Mahendra with whom he had an altercation that day.

Laws Applied

For the issue at hand, the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which have been used are as follows: Sections 86, 301, 302, 304.

Judgment

The apex court referred to Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to “Culpable homicide by causing the death of person other than the person whose death was intended”. To comprehend the same in the context of the present case the court used the “Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive”. This doctrine means that if there is any intention of a person to commit an offence, meaning that if there is any ‘mens rea’ then the same can be transferred to another case. For instance, if a person intended to kill a person but mistakenly kills another, then he can be held guilty of killing the person who was ultimately killed the same way as if he had killed the person whom he intended to kill originally. The same was applied by the court in this case and thus the convict would still be liable even though he did not intend to kill Hussain.

Moreover, the aspect involving intoxication in the present case at hand, as per Section 86 which states the general exception in case of intoxication states the following two conditions to be satisfied for applying the exception. First, the intoxication must have been without the consent or knowledge of the person so accused, and second the intoxication must be to the extent where the accused has now been incapacitated from making any decisions.

In this case, while it has been proved that during the shooting, the convict was intoxicated; however, it has not been proven that he was intoxicated to the extent of being incapacitated from making any prudent decisions. The court stated that it may be believed that the shooting of Hussain was a result of an accident, but it cannot be stated that the same was also a result of the intoxication of the convict which was done involuntarily. Thus, there lie no grounds for the reduction of his sentence from Section 302 to Part II of Section 304.

Thus, the apex court held that the appeal filed by the convict had no merit and the same was henceforth dismissed with no order to cost.