CASE COMMENT ON

PALANI GOUNDAN
V.
UNION OF INDIA
SUBMITTED BY
ZENE QAMAR

BALLB (HONS)
ROLL NO. 56, Class of 2022
Faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia

11/15/2018

Under the guidance of

Dr. Saadiya
Assistant professor, Faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia
 Certificate

The project entitled “Case comment on Palani Goundan v. Union of India”

submitted to the ​Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia for Law of Crimes I as part of
Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Dr.
Saadiya from to . The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award
of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been
duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date: 15/11/2018
INDEX

Appendix A (Cover page) ............................................................................... 01

Appendix B (Certificate)................................................................................. 02
Introduction.......................................................................................................04
Facts of the case ...............................................................................................04
Background of the case.....................................................................................04
Analysis..............................................................................................................05
Judgment of the case.........................................................................................06
Conclusion..........................................................................................................07
Bibliography......................................................................................................08
PALANI GOUNDAN V. UNION OF INDIA

The accused in this case a man was convicted for the murder of his wife, under section 299 and section 300
of the Indian Penal code, according to section 2991 which says “whosoever cause death by doing an act with
the intention of causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that is likely
by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide”
Section 3002 which says that “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
Secondly- if it's done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly- If it's done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid.”
The case Palani Goundan v Union of India deals with the question of conviction of an accused of murder
under section 299 and 300.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1) The accused struck his wife a blow on the head with a plough-share, which knocked her senseless.
2) He believed her to be dead and in order to lay the foundation for a false defence of suicide by
hanging, which
3) He afterwards set up, proceeded to hang her on a beam by a rope.
4) the first blow was not a fatal one and the cause of death was asphyxiation by hanging

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The accused was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. He appealed to this Court,
which took a different view of the facts from that taken by the learned Sessions Judge and has referred to us
the question whether, on the facts as found by the learned Judges who composed it, the accused has in law
committed the offence of murder, The facts as found are these, the accused struck his wife a blow on the
head with a plough-share, which knocked her senseless. He believed her to be dead and in order to lay the
foundation for a false defence of suicide by hanging, which he afterwards set up, proceeded to hang her on a
beam by a rope. In fact, the first blow was not a fatal one and the cause of death was asphyxiation by
hanging which was the act of the accused.

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 22 of 2018) s., 299.
2
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 22 of 2018) s., 300​.
Prior to the incident, the husband of the deceased was heard of beating his wife. As per one of the witnesses,
the deceased came to him complaining that her husband beats her a lot she was sent back by the witness
itself, afterwards when the girl’s father approached the house she was found hanging off the sealing, it was
told by the husband that the girl herself hanged her, although this was not the case.

ANALYSIS
The question which came before the court was that whether the offender is liable of culpable homicide
amounting to murder (section 299) or murder (section 300),
As after the reports came it was clear that the husband blew her head with plough-share which made her
unconscious, he was under the belief that his wife has died and hanged her on the beam by a rope, making it
look like a case of suicide, however the blew which he gave was found not to be fatal enough to have killed
her but made her senseless,
The most essential element i.e., the intention in both Section 299 and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, is
missing, there was no intention on part of the husband which is required in the aforesaid sections,
Section 299 which clearly says ​“whosoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing such
bodily injury which is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide”
There was no intention on part of the accused to cause the death of his wife or causing any bodily injury
which is likely to cause death,

Section 300 which says that “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
Secondly- if it's done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly- If it's done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid.
Same is the case with Section 300, the accused had no mala fied intention or the as written in explanation 2
that the offender knows that he is likely to cause death and this was not the case with the accused, or as
explained in Section 300 that the offender has hit with the intention of causing any bodily injury to any
person that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, herein the blow given by the husband
on his wife was not of that nature that can lead in causing her death in any way, lastly as explained under
300, which says that in all probabilities it must cause bodily injury that is likely to cause death, none of the
condition defined under Section 300 proves that the person has committed the offence of either culpable
homicide or murder,

PRESUMPTION REGARDING INTENTION3

In the light of the case Palani Goundan v Emperor (1919), it was found 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. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted either for murder or culpable homicide, he could be
of course be punished both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create fake evidence by
hanging her.
Similar landmark cases,
Queen-Empress v. Khanduvalad Bhavani4
.In this case it was found that the accused struck the deceased three blows on the head with a stick with the
intention of killing him. The accused, believing him to be dead, set fire to the hut in which he was lying with
a view of removing all evidence of the crime. The medical evidence showed that the blows were not likely to
cause death and did not cause death and that death was really caused by injuries from burning. The Bombay
High Court was of the opinion that the offence committed was an attempt to murder and not murder.

Another case is The Emperor v. Dalu Sardar5

Here the accused assaulted his wife by kicking her below the navel. She fell down and became unconscious.
In order to create an appearance that the woman had committed suicide, he took up the unconscious body
and, thinking it to be a dead body, hung it by a rope. The post-mortem examination showed that death was
due to hanging. The Court held that as the accused thought it to be a dead body he could not have intended to
kill her; if he thought that the woman was already dead, the offence was not murder.
In these cases, it was held that the offence committed was not murder or culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT OF THE CASE PALANI GOUNDAN V UNION OF INDIA6

(1.) The accused was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. He appealed to this Court,
which took a different view of the facts from that taken by the learned Sessions Judge and has referred to us
the question whether, on the facts as found by the learned Judges who composed it, the accused has in law
committed the offence of murder. Napier, J., inclined to the view that he had: Sadasiva Aiyar, J., though he
had not. The facts as found are these; the accused struck his wife a blow on the head with a plough-share,
which knocked her senseless. He believed her to be dead and in order to lay the foundation for a false
defence of suicide by hanging, which he afterwards set up, proceeded to hang her on a beam by a rope. In

3
​Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 22 of 2018) pg 107.
4
Queen Empress v Khandu Valad​ ​(1890) I.L.R. 15 Bom. 194.
5
​The Emperor v. Dalu Sardar (1914) 18 C.W.N. 1279.
6
​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/830371​ (Last modified Nov 1, 2018).
fact, the first blow was not a fatal one and the cause of death was asphyxiation by hanging which was the act
of the accused.
(2.) When the case came before us, Mr Osborne, the Public Prosecutor, at once intimated that he did not
propose to contend that the facts as found by the learned referring Judges constitute the crime of murder or
even culpable homicide. We think that he was right in doing so: but as doubts have been entertained on the
subject, we think it proper to state shortly the grounds for our opinion. By English Law, this would clearly
not be murder but manslaughter, on the general principles of the Common Law. In India, every offence is
defined, both as to what must be done and with what intention it must be done, by the section of the Penal
Code which creates it a crime. There are certain general exceptions laid down in Chapter IV, but none of
them fits the present case. We must, therefore, turn to the defining Section 299. Section 299 defines culpable
homicide as the act of causing death with one of three intentions: (a) of causing death, (b) of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, (c) of doing something which the accused knows to be likely to
cause death,
(3.) It. is not necessary that any intention should exist with regard to the particular person whose death is
caused, as in the familiar example of a shot aimed at one person killing another, or poison intended for one
being taken by another. Causing death may be paraphrased as putting an end to human life: and thus all three
intentions must be directed either deliberately to putting an end to a human life or to some act which to the
knowledge of the accused is likely to eventuate in the putting an end to human life. The knowledge must
have reference to the particular circumstances in which the accused is placed. No doubt if a man cuts the
head off from a human body, he does an act which he knows will put an end to life if it exists. But we think
that 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. It follows that a man is not guilty of culpable
homicide if his intention was directed only to what he believed to be a lifeless body. Complications may
arise when it is arguable that the two acts of the accused should be treated as being really one transaction, as
in Queen Empress v. Khandu (1890) I.L.R. 15 Bom. 194, or when the facts suggest a doubt whether there
may not be imputed to the accused a reckless indifference and ignorance as to whether the body he handled
was alive or dead, as in Gour Gobindo case7 Criminal Rulings 55 The facts as found here eliminate both
these possibilities, and are practically the same as those found in The Emperor v. Dalu Sardar8. We agree

7
Gour gobindo ​(1811) 6 W.R.
8
The emperor v. Dalu Sardar ​(1914) 18 C.W.N. 1279.
with the decision ob the learned Judges in that case and with the clear intimation of opinion by Sergeant,
C.J., in Queen Empress v. Kandu (1890) I.L.R. 15 Bom. 194.;

As in the above case, the bad intention was missing so it could not be held that the offender has committed
the offence with the same intention in which it has came out to be, the accused in the above case was
innocent as far as the question of committing murder of his wife arises.
The bad intention was nowhere proven and hence he was not held guilty.
As stated by the judges ​“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. It
follows that a man is not guilty of culpable homicide, if his intention was directed only to what he believed
to be a lifeless body. Complications may arise when it is arguable that the two acts of the accused should be
treated as being really one transaction, as in Queen Empress v. Khandu 15 B. 194 ; 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 131 or
when the facts suggest a doubt whether there may not be imputed to the accused a reckless indifference and
ignorance as to whether the body he handled was alive or dead, as in Gour Gobindo's case. 6 W.R. Cr. 55.
The facts as found here eliminate both these possibilities, and are practically the same as those found in
Emperor v. Dalu Sardar9” and the conviction was quashed on ground of absence of mala fied intention.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

9
​ ​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/830371​ (Last modified Nov 1, 2018).
● The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (22 of 2018)
● Criminal law cases and material, KD gaur
● https://indiankanoon.org​/
● SCC online
● https://manupatra.com