1. Conspiracy to commit burglary involving abduction and immobilization of a person by sealing the mouth and plugging nostrils with chloroform-soaked cotton, resulting in death by asphyxiation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
1. Rajwant Singh (In Cri. A. No. 102 of 1965), 2. Kalarimadathi Unni (In Cri. A. No. 103 of 1965), Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala (in both the appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 102 and 103 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (M/S. C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (in Cri A. No. 102 of 1965): Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate (at State expense), for Appellant (in Cri. A. No. 103 of 1965); Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate, (M/s. V. Narayana Menon and M. R. K. Pillai, Advocates with him), for Respondent (In both the appeals).
Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, C.I.SARIN, HARBANS SINGH, Jai Gopal Sethi, M.R.Krishna Pillai, R.L.Kohli, V.NARAYANA MENON
A.S.R.CHARI, C.I.SARIN, HARBANS SINGH, Jai Gopal Sethi, M.R.Krishna Pillai, R.L.Kohli, V.NARAYANA MENON
Under Section 300 (thirdly) of the IPC, murder is established if the offender intends to cause a bodily injury that is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, regardless of the subjective intention to kill or knowledge of the fatal consequence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300, 302, 304 - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide - Distinction between subjective knowledge and objective sufficiency of injury - Culpable homicide becomes murder if it falls under any of the four mental attitudes described in Section 300 - Under the third clause of Section 300, if the offender intends to cause a specific bodily injury and that injury is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is murder, regardless of whether the offender intended to cause death or had subjective knowledge of the fatal consequences. (Paras 8, 11, 12)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Common Intention - Where multiple persons share a common intention to cause a bodily injury that is objectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, all participants are held responsible for the resulting offence of murder. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellants conspired to commit robbery. They abducted a victim, tied his hands and legs, sealed his mouth completely with adhesive plaster and a handkerchief, and plugged his nostrils with cotton soaked in chloroform. The victim died of asphyxiation. The appellants argued that they only intended to render the victim unconscious and not to kill him, thus contending the offence should be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the acts of tying the victim, sealing the mouth, and plugging the nostrils with an asphyxiating agent were deliberated and preplanned. Objectively, these acts were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as the victim had no means of breathing. The death was a direct result of these acts without any intervening cause.
Issues: Whether the acts of the accused, specifically the method used to immobilize and silence the victim, constituted murder under Section 300 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under the third clause of Section 300 IPC, the test for murder is objective. Once it is established that the offender intended to inflict a particular bodily injury and that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is murder. Subjective intention to kill or foresight of death is not required under this specific clause.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether the acts constituted murder under Section 300 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, and the applicability of Section 34, IPC. (Para 3 , 7 )
3. The objective nature of sealing the mouth and plugging nostrils with chloroform-soaked cotton is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Para 4 , 12 , 14 )
4. If an intended bodily injury is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is murder regardless of subjective intention to kill. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Convictions under Section 302/34, IPC upheld and appeals dismissed. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. What distinguishes murder from culpable homicide under the Indian Penal Code?
Murder is distinguished from culpable homicide by the presence of any of the four specific mental attitudes defined in Section 300, IPC. If any of these attitudes are present, the lesser offence of culpable homicide becomes the greater offence of murder. (Para 8 )
7. When is an offence classified as murder under the third clause of Section 300, IPC?
An offence is murder if the offender intends to inflict a specific bodily injury and that injury is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, regardless of whether the offender intended to cause death or had subjective knowledge of the consequences. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. How is the sufficiency of an injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature established?
While usually requiring separate evidence, where a victim is rendered helpless and death results solely from the offender's acts, the nature of the acts and the causal connection to the result can objectively establish sufficiency. (Para 14 )
9. How does common intention under Section 34, IPC apply to murder under Section 300, Clause 3?
All persons sharing a common intention to cause a bodily injury that is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death are held responsible for the resulting murder, even if the consequence differed from what was actually intended. (Para 16 )
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This judgment will also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1965 (Rajwant Singh v. The State of Kerala). The appellants in these two appeals have been convicted under Ss. 302/34. 364, 392, 394 and 447 of the India Penal Code. Unni (appellant in this appeal) has been sentenced to death and Rajwant Singh (appellant in the other appeal) has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. No separate sentences under the other sections have been imposed on Unni but Rajwant Singh has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment under Ss. 392 and 394, India Penal Code with a direction that the sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life. The High Court of Kerala has dismissed their appeals and confirmed the sentence of death of Unni. They now appeal by special leave of this Court.
2. These appellants were tried with three others, of whom two were acquitted. One Taylor was also convicted of the same offences and was sentenced in the aggregate to imprisonment for life. He has not appealed to this Court. We are not concerned with them. The case relates to the death of one Lt. Commander Mendanha of the Naval Base, I. N. S. Venduruthy, Willingdon Island, Cochin Harbour, on the night of March 30, 1963. Unni was attached as a rating to this Naval base and at the time of the offence was on leave. Taylor, who has not appealed was an ex-sailor and Rajwant Singh was attached to I. N. S. Vikrant. The case of the prosecution was that these persons conspired together to burgle the safe of the Base Supply Office on the eve of the pay-day, when a large sum of money was usually kept there for distribution on the pay-day. They collected various articles such as a Naval Officer s dress, a bottle of chloroform, a hacksaw with spare blades, adhesive plaster, cotton wool and ropes. On the night in question they decoyed the Lt. Commander from his house on the pretext that he was wanted at the Naval Base, and in a lonely place caught hold of him. They covered his mouth with the adhesive plaster and tied a handkerchief over the plaster and plugged his nostrils with cotton wool soaked in chloroform. They tied his hands and legs with rope and deposited him in a shallow drain with his own shirt put under his head as a pillow. They then went up to the sentry, who was induced to part with his rifle to one of the accused who had dressed himself as an officer, and attacked him. The sentry would have received the same treatment as his Lt. Commander but he raised a hue and cry and attracted the attention of the watchman. Fearing detection the assailants released the sentry and took to their heels. The sentry after escaping informed the Officer-on-duty at the Base and stated that he had recognized Rajwant Singh as one of his assailants. Next morning the dead body of the Lt. Commander was discovered in the drain where he had been left by the assailants.
3. Investigation followed and five persons were placed on trial before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam Division, who convicted three and sentenced them as stated above and acquitted the other two. The appeals of these persons before the High Court failed. In these appeal the complicity of the appellants in the offence is not challenged but it is argued that the evidence for the prosecution does not establish the offence of murder but of causing grievous hurt or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is also contended that S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code could not be used against any of the accused. Unni has also contended that the sentence of death was not proper as the case against him was indistinguishable from that of the other two. We shall deal with these arguments.
4. Our attention has been drawn to the inquest and post-mortem reports to establish what was actually done to the Lt. Commander. From these, it is established that the legs of the victim were tied with rope and his arms were tied behind his back. A large adhesive plaster was st
