Name of the case: Palani Goundan v.

Emperor, 1919 ILR 547 (Mad)

Facts:

The accused has been convicted of the murder of his wife. The evidence shows that on
Wednesday, 23rd October, 1918, at about 4/5 naligais before sunset, she was seen by PW 6
(Prosecution Witness) weeping and she said that her husband had beaten her. The witness told
her to go home and promised to send her father and then she went to the father himself, a
little before sunset and told him of the occurrence.

After sunset, the father, PW 2, sent his son, PW 3, and his son-in law, PW 4, to the house
where his daughter was living. Their evidence is that they arrived at the house at 4/5 naligais
after sunset and that just outside the door, they found the mother and the brother of the
accused in the vasal and that the mother was remonstrating with her son inside by saying not
to beat a woman. According to their evidence, they did not hear any cries inside the house at
that time. After that, they waited a few minutes, the accused opened the door and came out.
Their evidence is that they went inside and found Ramayee lying dead on the floor with a
ploughshare lying near her. They said that they went and told Rasa Goundan, PW 5 who lives
two doors off from the accused’s home, to go and call their father, PW 2. Rasa Goundan, PW
5 said that he went and informed PW 2 who at once came and found his daughter lyind dead
at about 10 or 11 o’clock in the night. PW 2 said that he asked the accused about the murder
of his daughter and the accused said she hanged herself. PW 2 also mentioned that he went to
the monigar and reported but the monigar was busy with a procession and only promised to
report. He thought that the monigar was endeavouring to hush the matter up as he sent no
report to the police as was his duty to do, so then PW 2 had to go to report the matter to the
police himself at Kodumudi and laid a complaint, which was recorded at 9-15am the next
morning. The accused told a story to the effect that he came back early in the evening to eat
his meal and found his wife hanging with a rope tied to the roof and he calls 2 witnesses who
said that the accused came and told them that his wife would not let him in and they went in
with him and found his wife hanging from a beam.

The medical evidence shows that the woman had received a severe blow on the side of her
head which would probably have rendered her unconscious, and it also shows that she died of
strangulation which may have been the effect of hanging. That she hanged herself is
impossible because as pointed out by the Medical Officer, the blow on the head must have
produced unconsciousness and therefore she could not hang herself.

Issues:

Whether the husband has committed murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder
by hanging her under the impression that she is dead because of the violent blow given by
him to her.

Procedural History:

This case came before the Trial Court for hearing before Sadasiva Ayyar and Napier, JJ.:

The accused struck his wife a violent blow on the head with the ploughshare which rendered
her unconscious, that it is not shown that the blow was likely to cause death and the accused
hanged his wife very soon afterwards under the impression that she was already dead
intending to create false evidence as to the cause of the death and to conceal his own crime.
The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused intended to cause bodily injury for he
intended to hang and did hang whether the body was alive or dead. If he had stabbed her or
shot her intending it to be believed that she had stabbed or shot herself, he would have not
done otherwise than intended to cause the wounds which he did cause. In this case the bodily
injury was strangulation by hanging.

However, it is suggested that there is a necessary limitation, namely, that the person on whom
the bodily injury is inflicted must be a person who is to the knowledge of the accused capable
of being killed and that therefore if the accused thinks that the person is dead already he
cannot be convicted of culpable homicide. One objection to this theory is that it is not
necessary that the person who is killed should be a person to whom the offender intends to
cause bodily injury and that therefore his knowledge of the condition of the person killed is
not a necessary element for conviction of murder.

Justice Napier believed that the accused has committed the offence of grevious hurt, and thus,
sees no reason why he should not have to bear the consequences of his subsequent act in
killing the woman.
The accused was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. Thus, this
appeal.

Rationale:

The intention demanded by the section must stand in some relation to a person who either is
alive, or who is believed by the accused to be alive. If a man kills another by shooting at what
he believes to be a third person whom he intends to kill, but which is in fact the stump of a
tree, it is clear that he would be guilty of culpable homicide. This is because though he had no
criminal intention towards any human being actually in existence, he had such an intention
towards what he believed to be a living human being. The conclusion is irresistible that the
intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the
light of what he supposed to be the circumstances.

Dicta:

By English Law this would clearly not be murder but man-slaughter on the general principles
of the Common Law.

Judgment:

The acts of the accused do not amount either to culpable homicide or murder. He can of
course be punished both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create false
evidence by hanging her. When the case came on again for hearing before the Division
Bench, their Lordships convicted the accused of grievous hurt under Section 326, Indian
Penal Code.