In Re: Thavamani
(1943) 2 MLJ 13
Case Summary
[Punishment for Murder]
[Relationship Between Mens Rea and Actus Reus]
Facts
The appellant (second accused) and a co-accused (first accused) were prosecuted for the murder of Meenakshi Achi, whose body was found in a well in her garden the day after her death.
There was no direct evidence of the murder or conclusive medical evidence establishing the cause of death.
The second accused made a confession implicating himself and the first accused in the crime. He admitted to restraining the deceased while the first accused attacked her, believing her to be dead when the body was thrown into the well.
The prosecution relied on the confession and the recovery of part of the deceased's chain sold to a third party by the accused.
The medical evidence suggested the injuries found on the deceased were not sufficient to cause death.
Issues
Whether the appellant’s actions amounted to murder under Section 302, IPC, despite the lack of direct evidence of intent to cause death.
Whether the appellant’s belief that the deceased was already dead at the time of disposal of the body negates liability for murder.
Key Legal Provisions
Section 302, IPC - Punishment for murder [Section 103(1) of BNS]
Judgement
The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302, IPC, finding that the appellant had an initial intention to kill the deceased.
It ruled that the two phases of the act—attacking the deceased and disposing of her body—formed a continuous transaction driven by the intent to kill.
The belief that the deceased was already dead when her body was thrown into the well did not absolve the accused of liability for murder.
The judgment distinguished the case from Palani Goundan v. Emperor, noting that in Palani, there was no intent to kill at any stage, whereas here, the intention to kill was present from the outset.
The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was confirmed.
Comments