Can A Person Be Held Liable For Acts Committed On A Body Which He Believed To Be Lifeless? Kerala High Court Answers

In this criminal appeal, the Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian examined whether the act of the husband of pushing the body of his wife, which he believed to be lifeless, in septic tank would amount to an offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC.

Court said, “Needless to say, if an act is committed on a body which a person believed to be lifeless at the time of commission of such act, the offence is not attracted for, when the act was performed, the person concerned could have neither had the intention of putting an end to the human life nor had the intention of causing a bodily injury as is likely to cause death nor had the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.”

As such the Court altered the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the husband for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the IPC. Instead, the Court found him guilty under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment for causing grievous hurt to his wife which rendered her unconscious. The Court also confirmed his conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.

As per the prosecution case, the husband hit the head of the wife with iron rod and dumped her body into the septic tank which was in the courtyard of their house itself.

On considering the evidence, the Court stated that the appellant caused head injury on his wife due to quarrels between them on suspecting her chastity, and pushed her into the unused septic tank.

The Court however stated that it cannot be inferred that the appellant intended to cause the death of his wife.

The Court stated that the bodily injury inflicted on the deceased by the appellant did not result in her death and it occurred when the appellant pushed down the deceased into the septic tank.

Further, the Court observed that two views are possible, one is that, the appellant put the body of the deceased into the septic tank thinking that she was lifeless, for causing disappearance of evidence. It noted that the other view is that the appellant knowingly put her body into the septic tank to cause her death.

Court concluded thus, “As is well settled, the benefit of every doubt in criminal adjudication shall go in favour of the accused. Needless to say, we are constrained to hold that when the body of the deceased was put in the septic tank by the appellant, he was under the impression that the body was lifeless and he did so for the purpose of causing disappearance of the evidence.”

It thus stated that the act of the husband in putting the body of his wife, which he believed to be lifeless, into the septic tank would not attract an offence under Section 299 of the IPC.

It said, “the offence punishable under Section 299 IPC is attracted only when a person does an act which causes death of another, either with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. These three are the species of mens rea as contemplated in the provision, and unless it is conclusively established that the act of the accused would fall under any of these three limbs, it would not amount to an offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 299 IPC.”

The Court relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Palani Goundan v. Emperor (1919) to state that a person cannot be found guilty of culpable homicide, if his intention was directed only to what he believed to be a lifeless body.

As such, the Court partly allowed the appeal.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates C Rajendran, R S Sreevidya

Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi S

Case Title: Viswanathan v State of Kerala

Case No: CRL.A NO. 1119 OF 2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 173