CASE COMMENT AND JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS ON

EMPEROR V. Mt. DHIRAJIA , AIR 1940 All. 486

BY = SHWETA ARYA
EXAMINATION ROLL NO = 180654
ROLL. NO. = 182095
MOOT COURT ASSINGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The case Emperor V. Mt Dhirajia is an appeal of some little interest. The present case is on
the difference between culpable homicide and murder highlighting the thin line between
the concepts based on the knowledge and intention.

The decision given in the present case has been referred further in the case law Ggyarsibai
V. The State AIR 1953 where the judgement was delivered on the grounds as considered in
the present case. The case also has thrown some light upon the section 309 of Indian Penal
Code of 1921 which is Attempt to Suicide.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case are comparatively simple, Mt. Dhirajia is a young woman married to a
man named jagga . They have six months old baby. They lived together in the village and it is
accepted from the evidence that the husband did not treat the wife well. It is hinted form
the evidence that they both had a quarrel on a day and husband threaten her of beating
her, she was also not allowed to visit to her parents’ place. Late that night jaggga woke up
and found his wife and baby missing. he went out in pursuit of them and then he reached a
point close to railway line he saw making her way along the path. When she heard him
coming after her Mt dhirajia turned round in a panic, ran for a little distance with baby in
her arm and then jumped into an open well.

ISSUE RAISED

The issue raised in the present case is, the present appeal is to decide was the learned
sessions judge of Benares was right in convicting the appellant of Murder under Section 302
of I.P.C. and of Attempt to Suicide under Section 309 of I.P.C..
JUDGEMENT

It is our considered opinion that learned sessions has wrongly convicted Mt. Dhirajia under
Section 302 of I.P.C. . To take first the charge of murder , as we all know, according to the
scheme of penal code , muder is merely a particular form of culpable homicide, and one has
to look to see into every murder case whether there was culpable homicide at all. If culpable
homicide is present, the next thing to consider is whether it is of that type which under
section 300 is designated as murder or whether it falls within the residue of cases which are
covered under section 304 and are covered by culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In this case we can say that we do not, on the facts, attribute to Mt. Dhirajia an intention to
cause the death of her baby. Indeed, we think that there was no room in her mind to such
intention having regard to panic she was in. while considering that whether she had
knowledge, we are of the opinion that some degree of knowledge must be attributed to
who is sane. We regret that we have to assume that consequence must have been within
the knowledge, but not within the intention of Mt. Dhirajia. For these reasons we think that
case was of culpable homicide. The case we would like to refer to Lukada V. Emperor AIR
1952 BOM. 310, in the case the girl of 17 years was so ill-treated by her husband that she
jumped into the well with her baby, the appeal was tried by Bombay High Court came to the
conclusion that she was not at all aware that she had a baby with her. No doubt the
conclusion was justified but we are not prepared to apply the same to the present case. As
regards the charge of attempted suicide we think Mt. Dhirajia was wrongly convicted. To our
minds , the word attempts connotes some conscious act to do the endeavour to do the act
which is subject to particular section. We do not think that she did so in the conscious
efforts , she did so escape her husband. For that reason appellant conviction under section
309 and 302 0f I.P.C. is set aside and that is substituted for conviction under section 304 of
IPC, and we are unable to accept the argument of not guilty. She should be sentenced to
undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

In my opinion, referring to then judgement Lukada V. Emperor AIR 1952 BOM. 310, Mt.
dhirajia was in extreme fear of his husband chasing her and the act done by her was in order
to escape his husband, the court in its judgement gave that knowledge can be attributed to
every sane person , but the question arises was she really and can be considered sane at
that particular moment , she was in so immense fear of her husband that she as court
rightly gave had no intention to kill her child but also can be considered that she lacked the
knowledge too, as the Bombay High Court decided in the case mentioned above that the girl
was not even aware that she had the baby , it can be also considered here that mt. dhirajia
even lacked the knowledge of her act. In my opinion the reasoning given by the court for
not convicting her for murder and suicide are absolutely correct. What need to be given the
second thought is the presence of such fear will leave the person sane to think of the act or
to have the knowledge of the act he is doing. So if considered the facts it can be given that
she even lacked the knowledge and could have been non guilty. In an another judgement
after the present case was decided Giyarsibai V. The State AIR 1953 the women who
jumped in well with her three children was convicted for suicide and murder as she while
leaving her home said that she will die and kill her children too being fed up of the ill
treatment, here she said to have the knowledge of the act as she gave the statement before
leaving and knew what she was doing also attempt was involved as she was completely
conscious but in Mt. Dhirajia case it is difficult to learn that she had knowledge and even
consider her sane as she to consider her state of mind and the facts points out towards the
unhealthy state of mind in which she took such an immense step.