After hearing the learned counsel on either side and after examining the record, it is evident that deceased was infact murdered by the persons accused in the said crime. It may be that the deceased was working in the shop of the appellant and was dragged out and was inflicted with serious injuries outside the shop, but the act of murder of the deceased at the hands of accused cannot be said to be connected with the employment of the deceased with the appellant. The injury or the death of the workman, therefore, cannot be said to be arising out of and in the course of employment. The finding of the Commissioner to the contrary is, therefore, difficult to be sustained inasmuch as out of animosity with others or otherwise, if an employee is injured or killed, the said injury or death cannot be connected to the employment and it cannot be said that the injury or death has occurred during the course of employment. Though the act of inflicting injuries on the deceased may be an untoward incident falling with the definition of ‘accident’ as understood by the Commissioner but the nexus of such accident with the employment of the deceased is not satisfactorily established on the facts of the present case. The finding of the Commissioner to that extent is, therefore, deserves to be interfered with and set aside.
