Murder of an employee by unknown persons during the course of employment is an accidental murder and the employer is liable to pay compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 30th May, 2011 of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation whereby compensation of Rs.2,13,114/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are the widow, minor son and parents of late Suresh Singh and they filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation on the ground that Suresh Singh was employed as a watchman with the appellant in his factory for 13 years. On 11th November, 2001, Suresh Singh went to the house of appellant as per instructions received from the wife of appellant to do some sweeping work at the appellant’s house and thereafter slept in the appellant’s house on the instructions of the appellant’s wife. The deceased had to leave for his hometown in Ayodhaya on 12th November, 2001. On 14th November, 2001, the dead body of Suresh Singh was found on the second floor of the appellant’s house whereupon the matter was reported to the police and FIR No.845 of 2001 was registered by the police.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the murder cannot be said to be an accident under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. It was further pleaded that the deceased was not employed with the appellant. According to the appellant, the deceased was employed by the appellant’s tenant, Ramesh Bansal upto 1998 and thereafter, by Pathan Khan but he continued to sleep in the appellant’s factory at night and used to come to the appellant’s house to do household work. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to and relied upon Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v. Francis De Costa, (1969) 2 SCC 607, Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore (2006) 5 SCC 513, Rashida Haroon Kupurade v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 3 SCC 271, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali, (2007) 11 SCC 668, D.S. Constructions Ltd. v. Smt. Raj Kali Devi, 2010 LLR 316, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Gyan Kaur, 2000 ACJ 100, Lakshmi v. Proprietor, Hotel Ajantha, 2002 ACJ 1465 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. v. Srinivasa, 2007 ACJ 718.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents urged at the time of the hearing that the murder of Suresh Singh was an accident for the purpose of compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act. It was submitted that the deceased found himself at a spot where he was assaulted and murdered only because of his employment with the appellant where he was murdered.

5. Whether the murder of the deceased, Suresh Singh was an “accident” arising out of and during the course of his employment?

The law on this issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC). The Supreme Court drew distinction between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident. The Supreme Court laid down the test that if the dominant intention of the felonious act is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not accidental murder but a murder simpliciter. However, if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act, then such murder is an accidental murder. Para 10 of the judgment is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:

“10. The question, therefore is, can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that “murder”, as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not