The accused, who was subject to epileptic fits, slept in the same house as his father, so that he could be taken care of if a fit came on. On the night in question, he was found by his mother and others outside the house, standing by the dead body of his father, with a heavy stick alongside. He told his mother that he had killed a thief. She asked him why he had killed his father, and he made no reply. Later, in an extra-judicial statement, he said that earlier that day he had been visited by a man who wished to marry his sister and who asked the accused to use his good offices to arrange the marriage. The accused refused and the suitor left, threatening to return later and deal with him. That night, the accused appeared to dream that the suitor had come back, had entered the house and was beating his father. In defence of his father, the accused took a stick and beat the supposed assailant. Later he dragged the body of the assailant outside the house. There he was told that the man he had killed was his father. It appeared from the evidence that the accused was a confirmed epileptic. While under observation in the hospital after the killing, he suffered three epileptic fits, remaining in a confused state
for about two hours after each one. The doctor in attendance was of the opinion that, since the accused had been on good terms with his father, the killing must have. Been done in a confused state following an epileptic fit. If so, the accused could not at the time have been able to appreciate the nature of his act. The accused was charged with murder.
Held: accused was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court stated:
“On the evidence before me, I am satisfied …… that the accused was the
person who killed his father. I am satisfied also that he killed him in circumstances which would have mounted to murder had the accused been sane. I am satisfied, however, that at the time of the killing, by reason of a disease affecting his mind, he was unable to understand what he was doing and that he could not realise that he ought not to have done what he did”.
