PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. SURYANARAYANA, 1912

Spread the love

Post Views: 49

CITATION	13IND. CAS. 833
DATE	1912
COURT NAME	Madras High Court
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PETITIONER	Public Prosecutor
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.	Suryanarayana
JUDGES	Justice Ralph Benson

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Penal Code strongly differentiates between murder, culpable homicide and culpable homicides not amounting or amounting to murder under its provisions. For its cause of offence, for any one of them minimum required ingredient is that of mens rea or malice.

Malice refers to the intention of causing wilful harm to or killing another human person. The doctrine of transferred malice is inferred from Section 301 of the IPC and defines the substance of culpable homicide.

If a person has the intention to kill one individual but kills another whom he never intended tor, he has been guilty of a culpable homicide under Sec 301. Such an individual in such a case would be culpable under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice and absence of intent shall never form a defense towards such acquittal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, the accused took the life insurance of a person named Appala Narasimhulu and paid the premium himself. Appala Narasimhulu did not know about the life insurance.
Appala needed money for the second premium.
Appala was invited by the accused in the accused’s brother-in-law’s house. The accused gave Appala the poisoned sweetmeat with the intention of killing him and claiming the insurance money.
Appala ate the portion of sweetmeat and threw the rest away.
The thrown-away sweetmeat was eaten by Rajalakshmi, the daughter of the accused’s brother-in-law. Rajalakshmi died.
The accused was charged with the attempted murder of Appala and killing the brother-in-law’s daughter.
The Accused was convicted for attempted murder of Appala and not for the murder of Rajalakshmi. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
Therefore, he appealed to the Madras High Court .

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Is the accused guilty under section 302 for the murder of a girl, Rajalakshmi?
Is the Doctrine of Transferred Malice applicable in this case?

JUDGEMENT

The court interpreted Sections 299, 300, and 301 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in order to determine culpability.

Justice Benson found the accused guilty, stressing mens rea or criminal intent of his action.

Justice Sundara Aiyar objected to the liberal interpretation, arguing that accidental deaths should not entail guilt.

Justice Rahim, agreeing with Justice Benson, opined that the accused’s action in mixing arsenic into the halva and administering the same to Appala Narasimhalu at the house of Rajalakshmi was one of the causes in the series of causes that resulted in the death of the girl.

He stated here that the tossing aside of the sweetmeat by Appala Narasimhulu and the plucking and the consumption of it by Rajalakshmi cannot clear the accused of guilt of murder.

Madras High Court convicted the accused under section 302 and sent him to transportation for life under section 303 of IPC.

The court found that the accused did kill Rajalakshmi and is guilty of her murder. The court found that the accused had the intention to kill Narasimhulu, and, with that intention, he hid poison in a sweetmeat and offered it to him to consume. It was these actions of the accused that led to the death of the girl, although her own action in taking up and consuming the poison contributed to the outcome.

The court also noted that the Indian Penal Code does not prescribe that the offender should intend to kill (or know himself to be likely to kill) any specific individual. It is sufficient if he “causes the death” of any person by committing an act with the intent to “cause death” to anyone, either the intended person or any other.

The court also added that it is not indispensable that the death should result directly from the act of the criminal, without the contributory act of the person whose death is occasioned or of any other person. The court referred to the illustrations given in the Indian Penal Code in favour of this construction.

REASONING

The prosecution narrative in relation to the poisoning of Rajalakshmi was that when the accused presented him with the ‘halva’, the girl asked for a bit of it and that the accused, though he scolded her at first, gave her a small amount. But agree with the learnt sessions judge that this story is improbable. The accused’s niece was the girl. She was the daughter of his sister. Tie and her father (the prosecution’s 8th witness) were on good terms with each other. He had absolutely nothing to do with this girl’s death, and he had no need to give the girl the halva. The accused, during the testimony in front of the magistrate (the prosecution’s 22nd witness), attested that the girl had consumed it and eaten it. He had also said the same thing to the prosecution’s 8th witness when the latter returned to his house on the 9th evening after the girl was done consuming it. This is a fact consistent with the probability of the case, and we accept the conclusion of the Sessions Judge that the given was not passed on to the gill by the accused but had been picked up by her subsequent to the disposal by the prosecution’s 1st witness. The question before us is whether, on these facts, the accused is culpable for the killing of the girl. At the conclusion of the arguments, we pause to consider our judgement, for the issue appeared to us to be one of great moment, but we stated that, even granting that the accused is guilty of murder, we ought not to consider as required, in the circumstances, to inflict upon him the ultimate penalty of the law.

The question for determination is whether the accused Suryanarayanamurti is guilty of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in the following facts. He desired to put to death one Appala Narasimhulu, on whose life he had made considerable insurances, and for that gave him some halva (a kind of sweet) into which he had incorporated arsenic and mercury in a soluble state to be consumed. This was at the brother-in-law of the accused’s house, where Appala Narasimhulu had come on appointment. Half the halva was eaten by the man, but, not liking its taste, he discarded the remaining half on the spot. And then, on the evidence accepted by my learned brothers Benson and Sandra Aiyar, JJ., as also by the Sessions Judge, an 8- or 9-year-old girl, Rajalakshmi, daughter of the accused’s brother-in-law, consumed the poisoned halva, ate a part of it herself and gave some to another house child. Both the children died due to the effect of the poison, but the intended victim of the attack, Appala Narasimhulu, survived, though after a lot of suffering. It is also asserted as fact, and I agree in the finding, that Rajalakshmi and the other girl had eaten the halva without the knowledge of the accused, who did not intend to kill them. Upon these facts, Benson, J., would find the accused guilty of the murder of Rajalakshmi, but Sandra Aiyar, J., agreeing with the Sessions Judge, disagrees with the said opinion.

CONCLUSION

In the 1912 case, Public Prosecutor vs Suryanarayana Murthy, the accused was held guilty of murder by the court despite him not having the immediate intention of killing the deceased Rajalakshmi, invoking the principle of “transferred malice”. The court held that the accused in the present case is guilty of murder under Sections 299 to 301 of the Indian Penal Code. The court observed that the accused’s action was the efficacious cause of the girl’s death, though her own act of taking and consuming the poison was also essential to bring about her death. The court ruled that the criminal intent of the accused in trying to kill Narasimhulu rendered the act committed and the result which ensued an offence, although he did not intend the death of the girl.

The court has also observed that the Indian Penal Code does not require that the criminal must intend to kill (or have knowledge himself likely to kill) any particular individual. It is enough if he “causes the death” of any person by doing an act with intent to “cause death” to anyone, whether the intended or any other individual.

The court has also noted that it is not necessary that the killing be caused directly by the act of the perpetrator without the contributory act by the person whose death is caused or by some other person. The court referred to the examples provided in the Indian Penal Code to support this reading.

The appeal of the government was granted by the court, and the accused was convicted for the murder of Rajalakshmi. Still, the court did not pass a sentence of death despite the fact that it would have been justified had the accused been found guilty of murder in the trial.

REFERENCES

Written by Akhya Tripathi of United University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya .

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.