Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy, 1912

Citation
Keywords
Facts
Issues
Contentions
Law Points
Judgment
Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority

Full Case Details

Case - Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy, 1912

Facts

M.S. Murthy was intended to kill Appala Narasimhulu, (on whose life he had effected large insurances without Appala Narasimhulu’s knowledge, and in order to obtain the sums for which he was insured), gave him some sweetmeat (halva) in which a poison containing arsenic and mercury in soluble form had been mixed.

Appala after eating some poisonous sweetmeat (halva) threw the remaining halva. Without knowledge of M.S. Murthy (accused), the girl (Rajalakshmi) took the halva and shared it with friends. They ate and died subsequently.

Issue

Whether M.S. Murthy is guilty of the murder of Rajalakshmi?

Whether causing the death of a particular person is necessary to make him liable for culpable homicide or murder?

Contentions and Judgement

• Intention to cause death of a particular person is not necessary. It becomes apparent after cumulative readings of Sections 299 to 301 and illustrations of these sections.
• It is to be observed that the section does not require that the offender should intend to kill (or know himself to be likely to kill) any particular person. It is enough if he ―causes the death of anyone, whether the person intended to be killed or anyone else.
• Contributory action of victim is also not relevant. In section 299, illustration (a), Z went and fell into the pit. He died. A was liable for culpable homicide.
• Accused in the present case is guilty of murder, and this is rendered still more clearly by Section 301 of the Code. The cases in which culpable homicide is murder under Section 301 are not confined to cases in which the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Section 301 specifies other degrees of intention or knowledge which may cause the act amount to murder.
• M.S. Murthy was convicted for causing the murder of Rajalakshmi.