Facts of the case

The accused Gauri Shankar Bhat (58 years old) has been found guilty on charge 302 of the
Indian Penal Code which is Punishment for murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. An appeal was made for the
conviction of the murder and a sentence of death passed upon Gauri Shankar Bhat by Session
Judge of Cawnpore.
On 23rd September, the accused ask two little boys, Durga (son of Jawahir) and
Parmanand (son of Lala) sons of his neighbours to come to the temple to study. He then offered
some sugar to the boys taking precautions that his own son who was also present outside the
temple, should not receive any share of it. The boys ate the sugar on the spot and fell ill with
vomiting and purging. They were rushed to the hospital.
On 24th September, first police report was made which is within 24 hours of the
occurrence. Lala accused Gauri Shankar of poisoning the boys by substance in sugar based on
the statements by the boys. Both boys were treated in the hospital but the younger boy who is 9
years old, Parmanand was more serious.
Statetment of Parmanand : Durga and Parmanand was sent to temple by their mother at
Gauri Shankars instance, that they were given sugar to eat, that they complained at the time that
it had a curious taste, but were encouraged by the accused to eat it, and that they were taken ill
shortly afterwards.
On 25th September: Both boys were removed from hospital by their parents and perhaps
injudiciously with regards to Parmanand, while Durga recovered.
On 26th September: Parmanand died. The autopsy result was that the Chemical Examiner
puts it beyond doubt that death was the result of arsenical poisoning. Hospital assistant, who
treated both boys said the symptoms observed were those of arsenical poisoning.
The evidence in the case is not voluminous but straightforward and reliable. Mussamat
Jasoda was able to prove that Parmanand was sent to Gauri Shankar at the temple upon his
request. The most important evidence is the statement by Durga.

Statements of Durga: He says that he was given sugar by the accused at the temple along
with Parmanand. That they both complained of the sugar tasting bitter, but the accused re-assured
them, saying that there was pepper in it. He was able to go away and visit his house and another
place and had also eaten two puris, before he was taken ill.
There is one slight discrepancy between his statement and the dying declaration of
Parmanand. On a consideration of the evidence given by Lala and Jawahir it seems probable that
some confusion of memory on Durga is responsible for the discrepancy. However, this does not
seem of material importance, whatever the explanation of the discrepancy may be.
The motive in this case is that, although it may fairly be argued on the accused's behalf
that the motive is not a strong one for the commission of such an offence as murder. There was a
criminal prosecution pending against Gauri Shankar and the case was down for hearing before
the Tahsildar Magistrate on the 24th of September, Lala had been active in arranging for the
prosecution and was the most important witness in the case. Jawahir, had also been summoned as
a witness. As a result, Lala was unable to attend because he was waiting upon his sick son, and
the complaint was dismissed without any regular trial, the Magistrate apparently accepting a
statement made to him by Gauri Shankar and not considering himself called upon to make
further enquiry in the absence of the principal witness for the prosecution.
The accused sets no defence and denies all the facts alleged to him. He says that he was
not in the village at all on the 23rd of September and that the boys never came to him at the
temple. He suggests that the parents of the two boys were so seriously at enmity with him that
they administered poison to their own children in order to get him into trouble.

Legal Principles
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code
300. Murder.
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
2. If it is 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
3. If it is 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
4. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous 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.
This case falls under the second limb of Section 300 which is 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. As per second clause of Section 300, if a person intentionally causes bodily
injury, with the knowledge that such bodily injury will cause death of the person injured, then it
will be culpable homicide amounting to murder. Here, Gauri Shankar intentionally poisoned the
boys with the intention of causing hurt, although he might not have probably intended to cause
death, however he knew that it would likely cause death.
In case of offence falling under clause (2) of Section 300, there is first, the intention to
cause bodily harm and next, there is the subjective knowledge that death will be the likely
consequence of the intended injury. It is said to be subjective knowledge, because it is the
accuseds own personal perception of the consequence of his act. Here knowledge on the part
of the offender imports certainty and not merely probability.

The word likely in clause (2) of Section 300, coupled with the word knowledge
indicates a definiteness or certainty of death. The clause contemplates a situation, where the
offender has a certain special knowledge regarding the peculiar situation or health condition of
the particular victim that the intentional bodily injury is likely to be fatal.

The second clause of Section 299, which states with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death is similar to clause (2) of Section 300 which states 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.
The prosecution evidence was reliable and Gauri Shankar had certainly administered
arsenic to the boys with the intention to make them ill. The accused must have known that
he was likely to cause the death of Parmanand by giving him arsenic. There can be no doubt
that Gauri Shankar intended to cause bodily injury to the two boys and that the bodily injury
which he intended to cause by the administration of arsenic was of a kind likely to result in
death, especially in the case of a nine years old little boy. In administering arsenic to these
boys he knew that he was likely thereby to cause death.
It seems a grave matter to hold that a man of the accused's age, administering a
substance like arsenic, with the effects of which the agriculturist population of Northern India
is well acquainted, to a boy of Parmanand's age, and actually causing his death thereby, is to
be found guilty of any offence short of murder, even though his intention at the time may not
have been (and probably was not) to cause the death of the child. Gauri Shankar knew it to
be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause to the boys such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death. The case, therefore, just falls within the definition of the
offence of murder.

LAW 555
CRIMINAL LAW 2
CASE REVIEW

NAME:
NUR ASHIQEEN BT MOHD SULTAN

GROUP:
LWB04B

LECTURERS NAME:
AHMAD SHUKREE MHD. SALLEH