Luxmi Vs State: AIR 1959 All 534on 29-10-1958By Raghav Joshi,(R450210092)Rishab Shukla BALLB(Section B)(R450210097)
The Facts of the case• The appellant Luxmi, was an addict of weed and bhang.• He used to run around his relatives and would ask from them some money to dope.• He used to beat his mother and wife• Deceased Chedi Lal was his brother.• Chedi lal often rebuked him for his vices.• He never gave any money to Luxmi to smoke ganja or for any other intoxications
The Facts (Contd.)• One day the deceased found Luxmi beating his mother and wife.• He interveined and chained Luxmi• Luxmi ran away after breaking chains• Nihari Ahir, a person of the same village approached Chedi Lal and asked him to give money to Luxmi for smoking weed, but he didn’t agree to it• Thereafter Luxmi stopped talking to Chedi Lal
THE FATEFUL NIGHT• Chedi Lal was sitting on chabutara• Luxmi attacked him with Pharsa• Chedi lal Shouted for help, his son Debi Dayal and other villagers came to help him• Luxmi ran away• Chedi Lal died.• FIR was lodged against Luxmi and police came to the village and found Luxmi absconding
THE ISSUE• Whether Luxmi could get benefit of exception under section 84 of IPC?
Contention on behalf of the apellant• Accepted that he was addicted to weed• Denied that he had run away after striking Chedi lal with Pharsa.• That the act of the apellant fell under the exception Sectio n 84 of IPC• "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at tthe time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he isdoing what is either wrong or contraiy to law."
Cases Cited• Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King, AIR 1949 Cal
JUDGMENT• Analysis of : 1) Motive• 2) Conduct immediately before• 3) conduct immediately subsequent• In the present case there is evidence of motive against the appellant. His conduct prior to the incident as well as at the time of the incident does not support the contention that he was insane at the time when the offence was committed. His conduct subsequent to the incident also does not lend any support to this contention.
• It will be open to an accused in every case to plead that he had dreamt a dream enjoining him to do a criminal act, and believing that his dream was a command by a higher authority, he was impelled to do the criminal act, and he was therefore, protected by Section 84. We are of opinion that such a plea would be untenable, and would not fall within the four corners of Section 84
• ignores that what Section 84 lays down is notContd. accused claiming protection under it that the should not know an act to beright or wrong, but that the accused should be"incapable" of knowing whether the act done by him is right or wrong
OBITER DICTATo enable an accused to get the benefit of Section 84 he should be able to establish any one of the following three elements viz. : (1) that the nature of the act was not known to the accused or (2) that the act was not known by him to be contrary to law or (3) that the act was not known by him to be wrong.
• what Section 84 lays down is not that the accused claiming protection under it should not know an act to beright or wrong, but that the accused should be"incapable" of knowing whether the act done by him is right or wrong• What the law protects is the case of a man in whom the guiding light that enables a man to distinguish between right and wrong and between legality and illegality is completely extinguished.