retract during the trial. However, the court deemed these confessions admissible due to corroborating eyewitness accounts that established their presence and actions during the attack.

Issues:

The defence presented several arguments in the case:

1. They contended that the incident constituted culpable homicide rather than murder, seeking a reduction of the sentence to life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court found clear evidence of intent to kill, given the premeditated nature of the attack.

2. The appellants claimed their confessions were made under duress. Despite their retraction, the appellate court determined that substantial evidence existed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. The prosecution successfully demonstrated that both appellants shared a common intention to kill Moinuddin, as evidenced by their coordinated actions during the assault.

Judgment:

On October 7, 1955, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rawalpenta Venkalu and Bodla Ram Narsiah and affirmed the death penalty imposed by the Sessions Court. The Court concluded that the appellants had committed murder under the provisions of Section 300 of the IPC, identifying their actions as premeditated and intentional.

The Court stated that the acts committed by the appellants were clearly designed to kill Md. Moinuddin, warranting the death penalty as an appropriate punishment. It emphasized that the brutal nature of the crime, coupled with the premeditated intent, justified the severe sentence of capital punishment, reinforcing the seriousness with which such offences must be treated in the eyes of the law.

CHERUBIN GREGORY V. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1964 205

Facts

The case concerns the tragic death of Mst. Madilen on July 16, 1959. Cherubin Gregory, the appellant, lived in Champaran, Bihar, where he had built a latrine behind a protective wall. A week before a local festival, the wall collapsed, exposing the latrine. Despite repeated warnings from Gregory to refrain from entering without permission, Mst. Madilen and others continued to trespass. To deter this, Gregory installed a live copper wire across the entry, creating a risk of electrocution. On the day of the incident, Mst. Madilen touched the live wire after using the latrine, resulting in her death. Gregory was subsequently prosecuted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing death by negligence.

Issues

1. Whether Gregory's actions constituted criminal negligence as defined under Section 304A of the IPC.

2. Whether Gregory had the right to defend his property against trespassers, as outlined in Sections 97 and 99 of the IPC.

3. The distinction between intent and negligence in the context of causing harm.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India confirmed Gregory's conviction under Section 304A of the IPC. The Court ruled that while individuals have a right to protect their property, this right is not absolute. It stated that using lethal traps to defend property is prohibited. The Court found that Gregory's act of installing a live wire demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others, qualifying as criminal negligence.

The Court acknowledged that Mst. Madilen was a trespasser but emphasized that this did not absolve Gregory of responsibility. It affirmed that property owners cannot harm trespassers through dangerous traps. The ruling concluded that Gregory was liable for negligence leading to Mst. Madilen's death, thereby upholding the conviction under Section 304A of the IPC.

EMPEROR VS. MUSHNOORU SURYANARAYANA MURTHY

Facts

The case, dating back to 1910, involves the accused, Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy, who was charged with attempted murder of Appala Narasimhulu. Murthy intended to kill Narasimhulu to gain a substantial amount of insurance money taken out in Narasimhulu's name without his knowledge. To execute this plan, Murthy mixed arsenic and mercury poison into a sweetmeat called halva and served it to Narasimhulu at his brother-in-law's house. While Narasimhulu ingested part of the contaminated sweetmeat, he discarded the remainder, which was subsequently consumed by Murthy’s young niece, Rajalakshmi, aged about 8 or 9, along with another child. Both children died from the effects of the poison.

Issues

The primary legal question before the court was whether Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy could be held liable for the murder of Rajalakshmi, despite not intending to kill her. The court also had to consider the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, which allows intent to harm one person to be attributed

Judgment

The court found Murthy guilty of murder under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to culpable homicide causing death to any person other than the one intended. It concluded that, although Murthy did not specifically intend to kill Rajalakshmi, his actions in poisoning the sweetmeat were the proximate cause of her death. The court applied the doctrine of transferred malice, which holds that malicious intent directed at one individual can be transferred to another who suffers harm from that act, provided that both deaths arise from the same wrongful act.

Murthy was initially sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the attempted murder of Narasimhulu. However, this sentence was later changed to transportation for life, reflecting the gravity of his actions and the serious consequences that followed. The court emphasized that Murthy's motive to kill Narasimhulu did not absolve him of liability for the death of Rajalakshmi, as his conduct directly resulted in the fatal outcome.