Wakilii

Saeed v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1953)

East African Court of Appeal · [1953] EACA 396 · 1950 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for attempted murder by the Supreme Court of Aden
Decision
Conviction for attempted murder upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction for attempted murder under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that under the Indian Penal Code, unlike English or East African law, the jury could properly infer either that the appellant intended to kill the child or that he knew his actions were so eminently dangerous as to likely cause death. The jury's conclusion was eminently reasonable given the evidence that the appellant threw a six-year-old child into a 52-foot deep dry tank and fled without seeking assistance.

Outcome

Conviction for attempted murder upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder after throwing his six-year-old nephew into the Parsee tank in Aden, a dry tank approximately 52 feet deep with a hard stoney base. The child victim testified that the appellant and another man threw him into the tank. Corroborating evidence showed the appellant was seen with the child near the tank shortly before the incident. The appellant made an extra-judicial statement to a magistrate admitting he took the boy to the tanks where the child was "plucked out of his hands by some inner thing." After the child fell unconscious into the tank, the appellant fled without calling for assistance, though he reported to police the following day. The co-accused was acquitted due to lack of corroboration.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant intended to kill his nephew or knew his actions were so eminently dangerous as to likely cause death under sections 307 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
  2. Whether the jury could properly draw inferences as to intention without viewing the locus in quo.
  3. Whether corroboration of the child witness's testimony was sufficient to support conviction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Attempted Murder — Intention — Indian Penal Code vs East African Penal Codes
Under section 307 read with section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, a conviction for attempted murder may be sustained where the accused either intended to kill or knew that what he was doing was so eminently dangerous that he must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, a standard that differs from English law and East African Penal Codes.
Corroboration — Child Witness — Attempted Murder
Where a child witness testifies to being thrown into a tank by the accused, corroboration may be found in evidence that the accused was seen with the child near the location shortly before the incident and in the accused's own extra-judicial statement admitting taking the child to that location.
Jury — View of Locus in Quo — Necessity
A jury need not view the locus in quo to draw proper inferences as to an accused's intention or knowledge where the jury members inform the court that they are already familiar with the location.
Defence of Accident — Conduct After the Event
A defence of accident must be rejected where the accused, after the alleged accidental injury, fled the scene and made no attempt to call for assistance, even if he reported to police the following day, as such conduct is inconsistent with any theory of accident.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Indian Penal Code s.307
  • Indian Penal Code s.300

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Saeed v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1953) [1950] EACA 396 (1 January 1950)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.