Queen-Empress vs Kader Nasyer Shah 1896

(Landmark Judgement)

In this case, the accused, Kader Nasyer, was put on trial before the Sessions Court in Rungpur for the charge of murdering an eight-year-old boy named Abdul. During the trial, Kader claimed that he was mentally unstable at the time of the incident and that he was not in his senses when he strangled the child. As a result, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life transportation.

Issues before the Court

Whether the accused, Kader Nasyer, actually caused the death of the boy Abdul.
If he did commit the act, was he mentally sound at the time, or should he be acquitted due to unsoundness of mind (insanity)?

Analysis of the Court

After applying the legal principles to the facts of this case, the court concluded that the accused had not proven that he was of unsound mind at the time he killed the child. Although there were signs of some mental disturbance, it wasn’t enough to show that he didn’t understand the nature of his act or that it was wrong or illegal. The circumstances of the case suggest that the accused had at least some awareness of what he was doing. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction for murder and confirmed the sentence of transportation for life, which is one of the two punishments allowed by law for this offence (the other being the death penalty).

At the same time, the court followed a previous decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar case and decided to forward the matter to the Lieutenant-Governor along with a copy of the judgment. This was done so that the local government could consider the case under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code and decide if any relief or modification of the sentence was appropriate. While the court did not make any specific recommendation for leniency, it did note that the murder seemed to have been committed without any rational motive, and that the accused appeared to be suffering from some kind of mental disorder. Because of this, the court believed he deserved to be treated with compassion while still being held legally accountable.

Concluding Remark

In conclusion, the court observed that the circumstances surrounding the murder clearly showed that the accused was fully aware of his actions and their consequences. For example, the fact that he hid in the jungle after committing the crime indicated that he knew what he did was wrong. This behaviour proved that he was not deprived of the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong at the time of the incident.

Posted By: Manas shrivastava

Back