ENGLISH ASSIGNMENT ASSIGNMENT Case Study
Ashir-uddin Ahmed v. The King
“Son sacrifice case”
Aquib Ahmed
1st Semester.
CONTENTS Acknowledgement Facts Judgement Press Release onclusion
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
!he credit for the com"letion of this assignment goes to Almight# A$$A% and m# legal &nglish teacher 'r. Sabiha An(um )aidi who has de*oted her "recious time in the matter of this assignment. + would also like to thank m# friends and famil# who ha*e hel"ed me out in the making of this assignment. !hanking All, Aquib Ahmed.
FACTS His stry in his !n"essin #as this$
+ ha*e sacrificed m# son Jinu aged - or - 1/ #ears. 0n the e"ir# of the da# of Sunda# + dreamt a dream at night that + bad been in hea*en. As + had got u" two ste"s + heard 23our sacrifice 4korbani5 was of no use6 #ou will ha*e to sacrifice #our own son,2 +n the following, morning + searched for a castrated goat with a *iew to sacrifice a castrated goat also along with the son. !hereafter + thought that + had no necessit# of a goat when + would sacrifice m# eon. + bathed m# son at about 1 "rohar of the da# and bathed m#self also. + ke"t the knife in the mosque of our *illage before bathing. !he son came home after he had bathed in the tank. %e was "la#ing, + called him and brought him to the mosque. + asked the son to lie dawn, and he la# down. + asked him to shut his e#es and he shut his e#es. + too shut m# e#es. !aking the knife in m# right hand and thrusting it into son7s throat, + sacrificed him. %e was left there. After closing the door of the mosque 1 s"oke e*er# thing to m# maternal undo Asiruddin. !hereafter + went to the house of m# brother8in8law 9asiruddin and on the *er# da# + returned home. As is customar# when the case came on for trial, "resumabl# under legal ad*ice, the accused, retracted his confession. %owe*er, so far as this "art of the case is concerned, no challenge is offered before us and the (ur# were no doubt right in acting on the confession together with the e*idence of the accused7s conduct in going to his uncle and sa#ing what he had done. +ndeed, the confession and the accused7s conduct are both e*idence to establish what the accused did and also to establish, if at all, that he wa: entitled to "rotection under Section ;<, Penal ode. %ow his learned law#er thought that he was going to establish the latter b# ad*ising the accused to retract the confession is a matter of some m#ster#.
Plainl# the accused7s stor# was, and his defence now must be, that belie*ing that he had been so directed b# someone in "aradise, he had made a sacrifice of his son to god. %e clearl# therefore knew the nature of his act, the sacrifice was to be made b# killing his son. !he onl# question for consideration b# the (ur# reall# was whether he was "re*ented b# unsoundness of mind from knowing what he was doing was either 4a5 wrong, or 4b5 contrar# to law.
JUDGEMENT
!he learned Judge in gi*ing his directions on this "oint a""ears to ha*e failed to under, stand the law and to ha*e considered that in order to obtain the benefit of the "ro*isions of Section ;<, the accused had to establish that b# reason of unsoundness of mind he was "re*ented from knowing that the act wag both 4a5 wrong and 4b5 contrar# to law. +ndeed he e"ressed his own o"inion that the accused knew what he was doing 2was wrong and contrar# to law2. For this he referred to the fact that the accused after ommitting the crime went straight to his uncle and finding a howkidar hereb# took the uncle to a tank at some distance and slowl# told him the stor#. A""arentl#, the *iew the learned Judge took was that in so far as this showed that the accused was a*oiding making statement in the "resence of a limb of the law, he must ha*e known that what he was doing was contrar# to law. 9ut e*en if we acce"t this *iew as correct, the question still remains whether the accused knew what he was doing was wrong. +n our o"inion, the whole "oint of his confession and his whole stor# to his relations show that he thought that what he was doing was right, that he was commanded b# someone in "aradise and because his "re*ious korbani had been 2no good2. At an# rate this was the "oint which should ha*e been clearl# "ut to the (ur#. 0f the three elements necessar# to be established under Section ;<, an# one of which must be established b# an accused to obtain the benefit of the "ro*isions, it a""ears that first, the nature of the act, was clearl# known to the accused6 secondl#, that be knew that the act was contrar# to law, or we ha*e said this was "robabl# known to him. 9ut third element on which the case reall# turned is whether the accused knew that the act was wrong. !his "oint has not been "ro"erl# "ut to the (ur#, nor indeed was it a""arent to the Judge himself. +n our o"inion, he clearl# misunderstood the law on the "oint. 0ur own o"inion is that had the matter been "ro"erl# "ut to the (ur# together with the direction that the standard of "roof required b# the accused was not the standard of "roof required from the "rosecution, it is highl# "robable that the# would ha*e found in fa*our of the accused under Section ;<, Penal ode, and the learned Judge7s misdirection on this "oint there has been failure of (ustice. +n our o"inion the correct *iew is that the accused was clearl# of unsound mind and that acting under the delusion of his dream he made this sacrifice belie*ing
it to be right. !he result is that we allow the a""eal, set aside the con*iction under Section :=/, Penal ode. >e find that the accused committed the act alleged, namel#, the act of causing the death of his son b# cutting his throat but b# reason of unsoundness of mind he was inca"able of knowing that his act was wrong. !he accused is therefore acquitted of the charge under Section :=/, Penal ode. >e direct that the accused be detained in safe custod# in the (ail where he is now. A re"ort shall be sent to the Pro*incial ?o*ernment under Section <@1, riminal P. .
CONCLUSION !his is an a""eal b# an accused, who, has been con*icted under Section :=/, Penal ode, for the murder of his fi*e8#ear old son and sentenced to trans"ortation for life. !he onl# question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Judge ga*e correct directions on the question whether the accused was entitled to the "rotection of the "ro*isions of Section ;<, Penal ode, and as "er me the decision was absolutel# correct, now the "oint to think on is how B wh# Section ;< of +ndian Penal ode sa#s C Nthing is an ""ense #hi!h is dne %y a &ersn #h at the time " ding it %y reasn " unsundness " mind is in!a&a%'e " (n#ing the nature " the a!t r that he is ding #hat is either #rng r !ntrary t 'a#) !hree elements necessar# to be established under Section ;<, an# one of which must be established b# an accused to obtain the benefit of the "ro*isions, it a""ears that first, the nature of the act, was clearl# known to the accused6 secondl#, that be knew that the act was contrar# to law, or we ha*e said this was "robabl# known to him. 9ut third element on which the case reall# turned is whether the accused knew that the act was wrong and it was established that he clearl# misunderstood the law on the "oint. !herefore, it is e*identl# established be#ond an# reasonable doubt b# reading the abo*e mentioned section and the facts of the case together that at the time of the act, the accused, was inca"able of knowing the nature of the act or what he is doing is either wrong or contrar# to law. !hus he should be getting what he got, the "rotection of section ;< of +P.
