To test if the person was in intoxicated state will be determined by his ability to understand the consequences of his act.

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 16th December 2019

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal appeal no. 1885 of 2019

FACTS

• In this case, the appellant / accused Suraj Jagannath Jadav who was intoxicated started abusing and assaulting his wife and poured kerosene on her body, who was around 18 to 20 weeks pregnant.
• When she was trying to run out of the house to save herself and attempting to open the latch of the door, the accused came from behind and threw lighted match stick on her and set her ablaze.  
• Suraj Jaganath Jadav was convicted of an offence punishable of section 302 of IPC in the trial court due to which he filed an appeal in the High Court of Bombay.
• According to the dying declaration of the deceased, she came out of the room in the burnt condition and was making noise . After hearing her shouts, the accused poured water on her body.
• The learned counsel  on the behalf of the accused submitted that the accused was under the influence of liquor and his act of pouring water on her wife proved that there was no intention to kill her. He prayed that the accused conviction should be altered from section 302 of IPC to section 304 part II of IPC and the decision of the case  Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 324 should be applied.
• On the other side, the learned counsel of the state submitted that the decision of the case of Kalu Ram should not be taken it consideration, as in this case it was found that the accused was in a highly inebriated condition, which is not the case here. Here the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze which every prudent man would have the knowledge that this dangerous act would result in severe injuries or death.

        HELD:

• It was held that the intention of the accused to cause death was clear and the act of pouring the water on the accused appeared to be an attempt hide this guilt and seem innocent as he did it only when she came out of the room making noise.
• There was absence in proving that he was in a highly inebriated condition and he lost all the senses. Inebriation can be defined as an act done by a person where his  power of thinking becomes blur and he is unaware of its consequences. In this case, accused was in his complete senses and was very well the consequences of his act. 
• Thus the decision of the case of Kalu Ram will not be considered this present case and the accused will be liable under section 302 of IPC