NEW DELHI: The plea of "drunkenness" can never be an excuse for commissioning of brutal and diabolic offences by an accused, the Supreme Court has held while upholding the death penalty awarded to an accused for causing multiple murders when he was purportedly drunk.

The Court rejected the contention of the accused that he was in a state of drunkenness and did not know the consequences of what he was doing.

"The defence of drunkenness can be availed of only when intoxication produces such a condition as the accused loses the requisite intention for the offence. The onus of proof about reason of intoxication due to which the accused had become incapable of having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention is on the accused", said a Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia.

In the instant case, Mubarik Hussain was sentenced to death for brutally murdering his wife and four minor children when they were asleep. The trial court and the High Court had relied on the purported confession made by him after committing the gruesome act.

In his appeal he contended that the extra-judicial confession could not be construed as evidence as he was intoxicated.

Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that conviction could be based solely on circumstantial evidence.

On the quantum of sentence, the Bench said, "Criminal justice deals with complex human problems and diverse human beings. A judge has to balance the personality of the offender with the circumstances, situations and the reactions and choose the appropriate sentence to be imposed."

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat said: "A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised."

The Bench said that in the rarest of rare cases the collective conscience of the community was so shocked that it would expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion.

Holding that this case would come within the ambit of the rarest of rare cases, the Court upheld the death sentence imposed on the appellant and dismissed his appeal.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail