Palani Goundan v/s Emperor (1919)

Introduction

The concepts of Culpable Homicide and Murder, are such concepts which may sound confusing to a lay man, because it carries a lot of concepts and the differences between them are quite hard to understand or recognise. This case, is mainly based on the question, whether the act done by accused can be considered as Murder or Culpable Homicide without Murder.

Earlier, the offense of culpable homicide and murder were mentioned, in section 299 and 300 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). But now, as per the new criminal law of India, that is called Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the sections of Culpable Homicide and murders are 100 and 101 respectively.

This case first went for trial in the Session Court of Coimbatore, in Case No. 99 of 1918, where the accused was held guilty and sentenced to Death. A criminal appeal was filed by the prisoner and the trial was referred to the High Court for the confirmation of the conviction and sentence of death, as passed by the Session Court.[1] Due to the difference in the opinion of the division bench, the case was heard by full bench.

Facts of the Case

A man caused grievous hurt to his wife and rendered her unconscious, by striking a blow to her head with a ploughshare. The man, then thought her, to be dead, hung her up, with a rope, to conceal his offence, and calling it as suicide. It was later found by medical reports that, the women died not because of the blow to her dead, as it was not sufficient to cause the death, instead she died due to strangulation around her neck, which obviously she couldn’t do on her own, because she was unconscious at that time.

The accused stated that when he came home, his wife was not opening the door and so he called two other people and when they entered the locked door forcefully, she was hanging. While the brother of the woman told that when he came to the home of her sister, she was lying dead on the floor, with a ploughshare beside her and the mother of the accused, along with the accused was also there.

Issues

Whether the accused is guilty of Murder, u/s 300 of IPC (now 101 of BNS), or for Culpable Homicide u/s 299 of IPC (now 100 of BNS).

Arguments

Public Prosecutor’s Arguments:

The public prosecution suggested that the proper limitation will be found by introducing the word ‘unlawfully’. This would perhaps leave one class of persons, unprotected[2]. Prosecutor argued that this act was done unlawfully, and with intention to kill the wife, which falls under the section of murder. The blow was severe enough to cause sufficient injury, which shows a clear intention to harm. The concept of mens rea is applied as the accused knew that he was committing an unlawful act.

A person who does an unlawful act, such as conceal a murder, should face the consequence of the same, if the act done in furtherance of that unlawful intention results unintentionally in homicide. [3] The act of hanging shows his awareness of wrongdoing.

A history of violence against the woman was also there, which shows that the husband had motive and intent to kill the wife, which is an essential of murder.

Defence’s Arguments:

The defence contended that there was lack of intention on the part of husband, towards his wife, at the time of hanging, because he thought it to be a lifeless body. Therefore, there was no intention to harm.

Also, the medical evidence proved that the blow on the head of wife, was severe but not fatal or sufficient to cause death. The actual reason of death was strangulation by hanging, but which cannot be considered as the accused innocently, under the impression of the body as dead, did the act.

The defence emphasized the mental state of accused, stating that his belief in his wife’s death mitigated his culpability. They maintained that without clear intention to kill or knowledge that his actions could lead to death, he must not be convicted for murder or culpable homicide.

Judgment

It was held that the accused was not guilty of either murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The intention of accused should be considered not in the case of actual circumstances, but in the light of circumstances that accused thought it to be. According to English law, this is not a murder but the case of man slaughter on the general principles of common law. In India, every offence is defined on the basis of the act done, and the intention, with which the act was done, to call it as a crime.

This case does not fall under the case of general exceptions, as was given in chapter IV of IPC. In defining the section of Culpable Homicide, it was mentioned that its not always necessary that any particular intention must exist, with regard to the person whose death is caused. Here, ‘causing death’ must be comprehended as putting end to human life, deliberately or with the knowledge that the death can be caused.

The intention of causing death, must be in regard with the person who is either alive, or who is believed by the accused to be alive. It followed that, the man is not guilty of culpable homicide because his intention was directed, towards which he thought to be a lifeless body. Though the accused can be convicted of grievous hurt that he caused to his wife, and for fabricating false evidence by hanging her. [4]

Impact of Judgment

The case was cited in 4 or more than 4 cases, due to its statements for difference between culpable homicide and murder. All the clauses of culpable homicide, point towards, either the presence of intention or knowledge to the accused for his act causing death. But considering the body as already dead, this is a defence of innocence as he didn’t have the intention to kill an alive body.

This case held a clear distinction on the use of exceptions of criminal law, and both the act done, and the intention while doing. The case made it clear, that the act of hanging and the act of causing blow to head, cannot be taken as a whole transaction, as in the case of Queen-Empress v. Khandu (1).  The case also upheld the validity of judgement in the case of the Emperor v. Dalu Sardar (1). The learned judges say that, as he thought it to be a dead body, he can’t have the intention of killing it, and the element of intention is necessary for the offence of murder. The court Conclusion- did not consider the case of The queen v. Prince (2), to be relevant here in this case, which was strongly relied by prosecutor.

The focus was put, on the words and definition of culpable homicide, which does not include the word of ‘human beings’ after the word ‘death’ in the definition. The court said that the words ‘to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death’ cannot mean anything except bodily injury to the living being, otherwise, if not so, according to the strict words of definition, the relatives who burn the body of a man believing it to be dead, must be guilty of culpable homicide.

As regards to the argument of public prosecutor that if a person does an unlawful act, and try to conceal the murder, he should face the consequences, the judge referred to an illustration to section 299 of IPC, that is, of culpable homicide, which indicated that legislature of India never wished to import the artificial rules of the English Law of felony into the Indian Criminal Law.  It was observed in the case of Queen-Empress v. Khandu (2) that ‘what occurred from first to last, cannot be regarded as one continuous act done with the intention of killing the deceased’ and the court in the case of Palani Goundan, agreed with this opinion. [5]

Conclusion

In this case, the accused was acquitted for the offence of murder of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, because, while causing a blow to the wife, he didn’t have the intention to kill her and it was proved by the medical reports that the blow was severe but not fatal or sufficient to cause death. And, during the act of hanging, he thought that the body was dead, and thus he couldn’t have intended to kill such body. The intentions and knowledge to the accused were different during both the acts, and thus it cannot be taken as a single whole transaction. The court clearly interpreted, the intention of the person, not according to how the actual circumstance was, but according to how he thought the circumstances to be. The wife was not dead at the time of hanging, was actual circumstance, but the husband thought her to be dead, was the circumstance that the husband believed, and therefore, to focus on the intention of offender or wrongdoer, his intention is determined by his assumption of dead wife. Though, the husband was found guilty of the offence of grievous hurt to his wife and offence of fabricating false evidence to conceal his crime.

 

References 

[1] Palani Goundan v Emperor [1919] – 1919 ILR 547 (Mad)

[2] Id. at 4

[3] Id. at 9

[4] Id. at 11

[5] Id. at 9