Reg v Govinda

Title: Reg v Govinda

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Case Filed (in years): 1876

Case Decided (in years): 1877

Judges: Justice Melvill, Justice Kemball, N Haridas

Case Brief Prepared by: M Balaji

Petitioner: Reg 

Respondent: Govinda 

Citation: (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342

The Reg v Govinda case involved the defendant, Govinda, accused of committing culpable homicide by causing the death of his 15-year-old wife through physical assault. The court had to determine whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide based on the intent and severity of the injury. Ultimately, Govinda was found guilty of culpable homicide and sentenced to transportation for seven years.

Facts of Reg v Govinda

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 her 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 discolouration around the girl’s 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 vs Govinda has been found guilty of murder by the Sessions Judge and assessors and has been given a death sentence.

Issues

Whether the accused-the prisoner in Reg v Govinda had the required intent to commit the offence of murder specified under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code?

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner’s counsel in Reg v Govinda did not contest the fact that the Magistrate’s actions on 6-10-1958 impliedly discharged the alleged offence under Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code. Some criticisms against the proceedings of the learned Sessions Judge were based on misconceptions of the facts. 

It was argued that the docket entries in C.R.P. 13 of 1958 did not mention the records being called for from the Magistrate, leading to a question of whether a Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to make an order under Section 436 of the Cr.PC without obtaining the records. 

The main argument put forth by Sri M. Lakshman-Rao on behalf of the petitioner in Reg vs Govinda was that, under the new procedure specified in Section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for warrant cases initiated on police reports, there is no inquiry, but only a trial by the Magistrate. 

Therefore, any order purporting to remand such a case under Section 436 for further inquiry could only be considered as an order for a retrial of the case or that, according to them, would be beyond the Sessions Judge’s jurisdiction, as Section 436 does not grant the power to direct a retrial.

Additionally, the petitioner in Reg v Govinda claimed that the respondent was fully aware of the potential damages that could occur.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent’s contention in Reg vs Govinda was that there was no intention to cause death or that the bodily injury inflicted was insufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 

The counsel representing the respondent referred to Section 300(1) and (3) of the Indian Penal Code to support their argument. Additionally, the respondent claimed that they had no knowledge that the injury caused could result in the death of the victim.

Laws Involved in Reg vs Govinda

The provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with culpable homicide and murder were referred to in Reg v Govinda.

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code

“A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done

(a) With the intention of causing death;

(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death:

(c) With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.”

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code

“Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done (1) With the intention of causing death;

(2) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;

(3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;

(4) With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

Judgement in Reg v Govinda

The court in Reg v Govinda was of the opinion that the offence committed could be classified as culpable homicide, not murder. It did not find any evidence of an intention to cause death, nor did it consider the bodily injury inflicted to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court believed that such injury would not have led to death under normal circumstances.

However, the court in Reg vs Govinda acknowledged that a forceful blow to the eye from a person’s fist, while the victim is lying with their head on the ground, could indeed result in death by causing either a concussion or extravasation of blood on the surface or inside the brain. The court referred to Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence (Fourth Edition, page 294), which provided evidence of how easily such an injury can extinguish life.

Based on these factors, the court in Reg v Govinda reached a decision to convict the prisoner of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or it sentenced him to transportation for seven years.

Reg v Govinda Summary

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.