Lucas v. R. Crim. App.; 304-M-70; 12/8/70; Mnzavas, Ag. J.

Lucas v. R. Crim. App.; 304-M-70; 12/8/70; Mnzavas, Ag. J.

The appellant was charged and convicted of assault causing grievous harm c/s 225 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. One night in December last year, the complainant was sitting outside the house of one Mwalimo conversing with one Mota and other people. According to the complainant, when they were there the appellant came to the house in a drunken manner and entered the house saying, as he was getting into Mota’s house “I am going to sleep with Mota’s wife to night by force.” Mota hearing what the appellant was saying followed him and pulled him out of the house. The appellant left the place but after an hour or so came back carrying a big stick. He then suddenly and without warning struck the complainant on the head. The complainant fell down and remained unconscious for a whole day. The appellant in a sworn statement told the lower court that he was so drunk that he did not know what he did. He said that his assaulting the complainant was mere bad luck.

            Held: (1) “It may very well be true that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he delivered the brutal blow; but drunkenness per se is not a defence in a criminal charge. To be a defence it must be shown that by reason of the effect of alcohol upon an accused’s mind he did not know what he was doing (i.e. lack of mens rea) at the time he committed the offence, or that he became insane because of the drink. There is no evidence to this effect. On the contrary the evidence shows that the appellant was in full control of his senses. It is possible that alcohol may have inflamed his passions or increased his audacity or even reduced his self-control but this cannot be said to be a defence in law. In my view, a person who has voluntarily indulged in excessive liquor drinking should be held fully liable for any consequences which may follow. To hold otherwise would mean to put the public in enormous danger”. (2) “Insofar as the sentenced is concerned I do not close my eyes to the fact that the blow by the appellant was inflicted on a most vulnerable part of the body rendering the complainant unconscious for a whole day. The appellant is lucky that the complainant survived blow. I am not very sure whether drunkenness can serve as a mitigating factor insofar as punishment is concerned – Kenny (Outlines of Cr. Law 18^th Edn.) page 58 is of the view that this is the province of ethics of law. However, taking into account the facts of this Case and the further fact that Geita is a notorious district for violence, I tend to agree with the learned district magistrate that deterrent sentences for offences of this nature are indicated.” (3) Appeal dismissed.