REG V.

GOVINDA, 1876 ILR 1 BOM, 342

Submission of assignment for fulfillment of BALL.B DEGREE

NAME OF SUBJECT TEACHER: - Prof. Dr. Pallavi Gupta

DESIGNATION OF SUBJECT TEACHER: - HOD of Law.

SEMESTER OF STUDENT: - 4th semester

ENROLLMENT NO: - Riya Gupta (04125503822)

Ashutosh pachhami (04025503822)
Aditya Pandey (03925503822)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY STUDENTS

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to everyone who

contributed to the successful completion of this project. Our sincere thanks
go to our project team members for their dedication and collaboration
throughout the project. Each member played a significant role in shaping
the outcome. Special thanks to our Professor, Dr. Pallavi Gupta, for their
guidance and valuable feedback, which enriched our work. I’d like to
express my heartfelt gratitude to JIMS, Department of Law for affording us
the opportunity to collaborate on the Case Comment on Reg v. Govinda
1876, ILR 1 BOM 324. Lastly, we want to thank our families and friends for their
patience and encouragement during this project. Their belief in me helped
me to stay motivated and to persevere through difficult times.
 UNDERTAKING BY STUDENT

We, the undersigned Riya Gupta, Aditya Pandey, Ashutosh pachhami declares that the work
embodied in this project work hereby, titled “Reg v. Govinda 1876, ILR 1 BOM 342”, forms
my own contribution to the research work carried out under the guidance of Professor Dr.
Pallavi Gupta, is a result of my own research work and has not been previously submitted to
any other University for any other Degree/ Diploma to this or any other University.
I, here by further declare that all information of this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct.
 SYNOPSIS

TOPIC OR TITLE
Reg v. Govinda 1876, ILR 1 BOM 342.
ABOUT THE TOPIC

Reg v Govinda was a legal matter where the defendant, Govinda, was accused of
committing culpable homicide. The incident involved Govinda allegedly kicking and
striking his 15-year-old wife, resulting in her falling to the ground. It was alleged that
he then placed his knee on her chest and struck her multiple times in the face, causing
serious injuries, including a blow to her left eye that led to brain bleeding and her
subsequent death.

The court in Reg v Govinda considered whether the actions constituted murder or
culpable homicide. Ultimately, it was found that there was no intention to cause death
or the bodily injury was not likely to cause death ordinarily. The court convicted
Govinda of culpable homicide, sentencing him to transportation for seven years.

OBJECTIVE OF ASSIGNMENT

Main objective of this assignment is to develop the research skills and study the REG
V. GOVINDA 1876, ILR 1 BOM 342, this assignment will also help to enhance the
knowledge and get to know about the legal provisions. Through this assignment we
will understand the concept of justice and equality. this assignment helps us to know
about the legal provisions, contentions of different advocated and the opinions of the
judges.

OUTCOME OF THE ASSIGNMENT

This assignment helps us to know about the legal provisions, contentions of different
advocates and the opinions of the judges. Through this assignment we got to know
about how the legal proceeding takes place.

REFERENCE

www.manupatra.com

https://blog.ipleaders,com
 REG V. GOVINDA, 1877 ILR 1 BOM 342

CITATION:
Citation: (1877) ILR 1 BOM 342.

NAME OF THE PARTIES:

Petitioner: Reg
Respondent: Govinda.

NAME OF JUDGES:
• MELVILL
• R.F. MACTTEER
• KEMBALL
• N HARIDAS

LAW INVOLVED:
Culpable homicide (Section 299)
Murder (Section 300)

BREIF FACTS OF CASE LAW:

In Reg v. Govinda, a young man aged 18 stands accused of assaulting his 15-year-old wife.
According to the evidence presented. He kicked his wife and struck her multiple times with
his fist on her back, causing no serious injury.
However, she fell to the ground or it is alleged that the accused placed one knee on her chest
and struck her two or three times on the face.
Based on medical evidence, some of these blows were forceful and delivered with a closed
fist, resulting in contusion and discoloration around her left eye. Although her skull remained
intact, the impact caused bleeding within the brain, leading to her death either at the scene or
shortly afterwards.
Consequently, the defendant in reg v. Govinda has found guilty of murder by the sessions
judges and assessors and has been given a death sentence.

ISSUES:
Whether the accused had the required intent to commit the offence of murder specified under
section 300 of the Indian penal code?
If so, can he be held guilty of murder?
What is the difference between culpable homicide and murder?
 ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL:

The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the position that the Magistrate's action
on 6-10-1958 amounted to an implied discharge in respect of the alleged offence Under
Section 322. Indian Penal Code. Some of their criticisms against the proceedings of the
learned Sessions Judge were based on a misconception of the facts. It was urged that the
entries in the docket of C.R.P. 13 of 1958 did not mention, that the records were called for
from the Magistrate and that the question arises whether a Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to
make an order Under Section 436. Cr.P.C. without calling for the records.
The main contention of Sri M. Lakshman-Rao on behalf of the petitioner was that under the
new procedure specified in Section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code for warrant cases
instituted on police reports, there is no inquiry but only a trial by the Magistrate that any
order purporting to remand such a case Under Section 436 for further inquiry can only
amount to an order for a retrial of the case and that such an order is without jurisdiction as the
Sessions Judge has no power Under Section 436 to direct a retrial.
The petitioner had also stated that in no way the respondent was unaware of the damages that
will happen.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENDENT’S COUNSEL:

The contention of the respondent was that there was no intension to cause death nor the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. The counsel that had represented the respondent referred to Clause (1) and Clause (3)
of Section 300.
The respondent also stated that he had no knowledge that such an injury could amount to the
death of the victim.

DECISION:

The Lordship had brought forward the differences between Section 299 and 300 of the IPC.
The court had stated that there was absence of intention. In both, Section 299 and 300, the
key element is that there should be an intention of causing the death.
The Lordship had put forward another opinion that the offence committed by the accused was
not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The accused was sentenced to transportation for seven years, under Part I of Section 304 I.P.C
and not under Section 302 of the IPC.
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN:

The court analyzed the difference between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
murder under section 300. It referred to clause (a) and subsection (1) and stated that, in order
to prove the offence of murder, the intention to kill should be present as per the two clauses
mentioned above. That is to say that if A is charged with murder, both clauses should be
proved to ensure his guilt. In the same way, clause (c) and (4) was interpreted to mean that
there will be no intention to cause death or bodily injury. A few examples of such clauses
include the Furious driving, etc. concussion or extravasations of blood from the brain which
appeared on the surface showed that how death could occur due to mere blow on the head
area.

Conclusion:

In this case, the court held that the accused, who was sentenced by the sessions court should
be punished for his guilt for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as they did not find
the intention part for the conviction under section 300. Thus he was ordered and sentenced to
seven years of imprisonment.