John Dowlat Moon vs Emperor

Ross, J.—The appellant, John Dowlat Moon, a man of forty-five a drill man in the Noamunni prospecting camp of the Tata Iron and Steal Company, lived in a bungalow with two other men, Shome, a man of forty, a field assistant, who was working under him, and Pramanik-aged forty-three, a surveyor. On the morning of 30th December 1926, when Shome and Pramanik were walking on the varandah of the bungalow, Moon came out of his room with a gun and shot Shome through the heart and killed him. Pramanik was also shot in the right elbow. He was running to his room when Moon followed him. Pramanik caught hold of the barrel of the gun and they struggled. Pramanik fell and was shot in the back. Moon then shot himself and blew away part of his upper jaw. Moon and Pramanik eventually recovered. There is no dispute about these facts and the only question argued in appeal was the question of Moon''s sanity.

The argument is that Moon was a man of good character; that there was no motive for the crime; and that there is evidence that he was labouring under a delusion that Shome was supplanting him and that he and Parmanik were going to kill him and that consequently Moon''s act which, if his delusion was true, was an act of self-defence, was not known to him to be wrong or contrary to law.

There is evidence that the appellant was a man of good character. Mr. Dobbs, the General Superintendent of Quarries and Mines of the Tata Iron and Steel Company, says that as far as he knows the accused and Shome and Pramanik were not addicted to drinking and their moral character was good. Mr. Percival, Superintendent of Prospecting, Jemshedpur, says that Moon was normally a quiet sort of man and he did not find any serious fault with him. Abdulla, drilling fitter says that the accused was a very good man; and similar evidence is given by Damu who was the cook of the appellant and deceased. There is no evidence to the contrary.

The evidence of motive stands in this way. Babu Bibhuti Bhushan Mitter, the Manager at Noamundi, says that to his conviction the parties were very friendly and he could not make out how this happened. Mr. Dobbs says that he did not notice any trouble between Shome and the accused and Pramanik and that they were all quiet sort of people. Mr. Percival says that he had no reason to suspect any ill-feeling between Moon and Shome or Moon and Pramanik before the occurrence, Mohiuddin, a drilling fitter says that Shome and Moon were on good terms and that he was surprised at the occurrence. Abdulla also says that Moon was on good terms with Pramanik and Shome.

Shortly after the occurrence on 30th December Moon wrote a statement at the instance of Mr. Dobbs and it was to the effect that he was said to be a carbon stealer and he got angry and killed Shome and Pramanik. On 1st January the Deputy Commissioner questioned Moon as to why he had shot Shome and whether he had any enmity with Pramanik and the answers that he wrote were that Shome was always saying to the coolies and other people that Government people and police people would catch him in the month of January and out his head and body and that Pramanik and Shome were arranging to kill him and were always trying to catch him. Mr. Sjobom, a Boring Engineer of Messrs. Ingersoll and Company, who was at Noamundi in connexion with the installation of a boring machine and was instructing Moon in his duties, deposed that Moon said to him on 28th December that be had discovered that he had an enemy and that enemy was trying to deprive him of his job. The witness understood that the man to whom the accused referred was Shome. Mr. Percival says that he had no idea of dispensing with Moon''s services and it was not a fact that he wanted to replace him by Shome.

Pramanik, who gave some evidence about a trifling quarrel over messing charges which had taken place two months before the occurrence between Moon and Shome, said that the quarrel was settled and nothing had happened after that. He also said that he did not know of any attempt on Shome''s part to take the place of the appellant. While, therefore, so far as the evidence of motive goes, (and it must be remembered that the utmost that can be said on a question of motive is not that there was none, but that none has been discovered) it would seem that in actual fact there was no reason for Moon to think that Shome was trying to supplant him, yet he himself did believe that this was the case. I have already referred to his first statement in which he spoke about the accusation of stealing carbon. The evidence shows that this is a precious material used in the process of drilling, but although some bits of carbon were found in Moon''s quarters when they were searched and were claimed by the Manager on behalf of the Company, Mr. Percival''s evidence shows that there was nothing wrong with Moon''s carbon account and that the carbons wear a little in working and occasionally bits chip off. There was, however, apparently something working in the mind of the appellant which gave him uneasiness about his employment.

As the decision depends on the state of the appellant''s mind, evidence was given as to his state of mind before and after and about the time of the occurrence. Regarding the period before the occurrence Mohiuddin says that he found nothing wrong in the appellant''s brain during the nine years he worked with him. Abdulla was working with Moon for three years and never saw anything wrong in his brain. And the cook gives similar evidence that he was never beside himself and never behaved like a mad man. As to his mind after the occurrence there is ample evidence, The Civil Surgeon had him in hospital for about four months and often attended him and he did not see any sort of mental derangement in him during that period. He observed him because he thought that a question of insanity might come up and he found him leading a perfectly normal life so far as his mind was concerned and he did not notice in him any lunacy, monomania or homicidal mania. Mr. Dain, the Deputy Commissioner, who recorded the statements of the appellant on 1st and on 10th January, said that he never noticed any derangement in his brain and he seemed to be in a normal state. He had no reason to suspect that he was insane and Moon clearly understood what he said to him and from that he said that he did not find him to be of unsound mind.

This evidence, however, is not really decisive, because the question is as to the. state of his mind at the time of this impulsive or explosive act. The principal witness on this point is Mr. Sjobom. He had been at Noamundi from 24th December and he says for the first few days, from 24th to 27th, the condition of Moon was normal. On the 28th, he stood in his verandah all day with hands interlocked. Witness asked him to go to his work and he replied "To-day is my holiday; I am going to heaven." The witness got the impression that he was insane and Moon told him that somebody was coming to out him and throw him in pieces in the nala. In the afternoon he found him in the same condition and again at 5 o''clock that evening he repeated what he had said about being cut to pieces and said that he had discovered that he had an enemy. On the 29th, Moon was not at his work and the witness went to his house and found him standing on the verandah in the same position as on the previous day and Moon started telling, him the same thing. Moon also told him that he was not in charge. The witness argued with him and convinced him that he was in charge and that no one was taking his place and then Moon came and worked as usual. On their return from work that day they saw a deer and Moon, handed the witness a gun and asked him to shoot it. It appears that on the 28th, a summons had been delivered to Moon in a suit of the value of Rs. 3,000 in his native village, Chanda, in the Central Provinces, and the witness said that the summons appeared to have upset him. He spoke one thing now and repeated the same a little after. The ways and manners of the accused did not appear to the witness like those of a sane man, because no sane man would stand in the same posture and in the same place for the whole day. He looked "scared-like and jumpy-like" and was absent minded and had a vacant look.

This is the evidence upon which the plea of insanity is mainly based. But this is not the only evidence about the state of mind of the appellant on 28th and 29th December. Mr. Percival went to the camp on the 28th and left on the morning of the 29th. He says that the accused was not all along with him during. his inspection, but when he examined his work he took Moon with him. He did not find Moon any way different from other occasions. There was nothing abnormal in him and he had had experience of Moon for six years. He says that Moon was rather of a nervous temperament. He met him at his work and had a talk with him for a few minutes in the morning and did not suspect on that occasion anything wrong in his brain but he did not watch him carefully Pramanik says that he had no suspicion on the 28th or 29th that the accused''s brain had become deranged. It would appear, therefore, that there is some exaggeration in Mr. Sjobom''s evidence. It is hardly credible that Moon should have stood on his verandah with his hands Interlocked all day long and it was this that the witness referred to as his reason for thinking him insane.

Learned Counsel also referred to the three statements of the appellant as indicative of insanity. Now it is to be remembered that Moon is a man with slight knowledge of English. He is a mechanic and it is not likely that he would write or spell English correctly. The first statement is definitely clear that he was accused of stealing carbon and that he got angry and killed Shome and Pramanik; and then he goes on to give a list of his property. In his second statement made to the Deputy Commissioner he first of all gave directions for the disposal of his property intelligently enough, as he was expected to die; and then he made the statement which I have already quoted in answer to the questions why he had killed Shomu and wounded Pramanik. The third statement made on 10th when he retracted his earlier statement, is purely fanciful. It is to the effect that he was in his bungalow in the night when some people were trying to attack them and he heard that they would kill him and Shome and Pramanik, and anyhow he protected his life.

Now there is some indication in all this of a disordered mind. It may have been the result of financial worry. Moon was a man with an income of about Rs. 450 a month. He had a son in England who was probably costing him about Rs. 200 a month and he had this action involving Rs. 3,000 of which he had just received notice, pending against him, There may also have been some fear for his appointment and his mind may have been uneasy because of the bits of carbon that were found in his house. But in view of the general evidence of his sanity and of the evidence that about the time of the occurrence he was sane and showed no sign of abnormality, I am not prepared on the strength of Mr. Sjobom''s statement to hold that Moon was insane when he committed this act. Indeed his earliest statement made shortly after the occurrence does not negative the existence of moral judgment but rather suggests an act committed in anger at an unfounded charge.

All the assessors were of opinion that the appellant was guilty. The first assessor said that the accused was conscious of what he was doing. The second was of opinion that there was no sufficient proof that the accused did not know that what he was doing was contrary to law. The third assessor said that though his mind was partly deranged at that time yet he was conscious of what he was doing. The fourth assessor said that the act was premeditated.

On the whole, the plea of insanity is not made out, and the appeal must be dismissed. But the case is near the border line and I think that it should be reported to the Local Government with a view to the consideration of the sentence of transportation for life.

Jwala Prasad, J.

The case is a difficult one. The difficulty arises, from the absence of adequate motive to kill Shome and Wound Pramanik, the two persons who were residing in the same house with the accused Perhaps Shome, if alive, would have enlightened us on the point as to whether anything happened before the occurrence which induced the accused to kill him.

The accused undoubtedly had been suffering from financial worries and was labouring under an impression that Shome was trying to oust him from his job and to take his place. If the evidence given by Sjobom be accepted, the accused was in a bewildered state of mind a day or two before the date of the occurrence. But the evidence does not go to the length of showing that the accused could not be conscious of the nature of the act he was doing at the time of the occurrence. The evidence of his own cook, who used to live with him always, shows that he had never noticed any sign of lunacy In the accused. He says virtually that there was nothing unusual about the acts and movements of the accused previous to the occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence and ever since then the accused exhibited no sign of insanity.

It is difficult in the circumstances of the case to hold that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time when he attacked Shome and Pramanik. The antecedents and the sub-sequent conduct of the man are relevant only to show what was the state of the mind of the accused at the time the act was committed, but we are concerned solely with the state of his mind at the time of doing the act. My learned brother has gone into the case fully and has analyzed the evidence and shown that the case does not come within the purview of Section 84, I.P.C. But it is a case on the border line and such as the Local Government may consider.

I fully agree with the view of my learned brother.