When Comedy Meets Crime: An Analysis of Murder Mystery (2019) Through Indian Criminal Law.

~ Anannya Jain, OP Jindal Global University.

Murder Mystery (2019), directed by Kyle Newacheck, starring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler, is a comedy whodunit. It follows Nick, a police officer, and his wife, Audrey, as they get themselves entangled in a crime. On the flight to Europe they met Charles, who invites them to a yacht party hosted by his billionaire uncle, Quince. Just as Quince is about to sign his new will naming his fiance, Suzi, as the sole heir, there is a blackout and Quince is stabbed through his heart. His murder is followed by a string of killings, his son Tobey’s staged suicide, a bodyguard Sergei’s shooting, Suzi’s death by a dart, and finally Charles’ death by poisoning. When examined through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, BNS, it becomes a piece of how murder, intention and knowledge, common intention, abatement, and criminal conspiracy play together.

Proving Murder in a Room Full of Motives

Just before Quince had died he had announced he was naming Suzi his sole heir. Right after which there was a blackout during which he was stabbed. The strategic blackout when Quince is stabbed renders the act unwitnessed and there are several people present in the room all with motive. Grace, his abandoned daughter and Tobey, his son with financial motive of inheriting the money, as under French inheritance law, “if the deceased had children, the entire inheritance belongs to them.”^[1] Charles wanted revenge as Quince stole his fiance, Carlos, a race car driver, also wanted revenge as his father was also a race car driver working for Quince and because Quince chose to overlook a safety precaution, his father had gotten into an accident and lost both his legs. Finally the Colonel’s motive was also revenge as Quince had stolen the woman he loved many years ago and the woman had died in childbirth while giving birth to Grace.

Under S.101(c) of BNS, culpable homicide is murder if 1) there is a bodily injury 2) the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and 3) it was intentionally inflicted. Right after Quince’s announcement, Grace had slipped out of the room, giving her the opportunity to cause the blackout during which Tobey, the one standing closest to him, stabbed him with the family dagger. As per the conditions of s.101(c) there is a bodily injury, as he was stabbed, the injury was sufficient to cause death as it was straight in the heart, and the intention was present due to the presence of the motive and the preparation. The blackout and the precise stab in the heart indicate premeditation, and not just an act done in the heat of the moment.

The next one killed was Tobey. He was found with a shot in his head, a gun in his hand, and a typewritten suicide note confessing that he committed suicide in the guilt of murdering his father. When Nick and Audrey reach there, Grace is already present in the room. Tobey’s head is lying on the desk, and the gun in his hand, the hand very strategically placed on the table, when in reality if he had actually shot himself, the placement of his hand and gun would not be so precise and perfect. Grace had clearly shot him with two motives; 1) to inherit the entirety of the inheritance herself and 2) to make it seem like since Tobey committed the murder and has now committed suicide, the case is closed, the murderer has been found and there would be no more investigations.

However, Nick and Audrey continue to investigate and it is important for Grace to get rid of them so her secret would not be revealed. So while they are at Sergei’s room, the killer shoots through the door, trying to get Nick and Audrey but get Sergei instead. When Nick and Audrey are running they see Grace with the Maharajah, and the Maharajah reveals later that Grace had been with him for an hour at least. So who did her work, well it was Carlos. It is revealed he had instigated Grace into ruining her family, and he knew she would be easy to convince as Grace had been abandoned by Quince.

The Criminal Partnership

Their working together is proved from the fact that when Grace wore a mask and shot Suzi with a dart, when she was actually aiming for Nick and Audrey, and they were running after her, Carlos had tripped Nick to stop him from reaching her. Moreover, Grace and Carlos had then killed Charles as Suzi was Charles’ ex-fiance and he still loved her so they knew that he wouldn’t rest until he found out who had killed Suzi. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini^[2] has held that when multiple acts advance the object of a criminal design, the mens rea extends across the chain of acts. In the movie, each subsequent killing is consistent with the common object to secure inheritance, take revenge, eliminate evidence, or preserve concealment.

Grace and Carlos would have joint liability as they work together and do acts to further the common intention, Grace engineered the blackout and instigated Tobey, and killed Tobey and Suzi. Carols killed Sergei, and together they killed Charles. Under S.3(5) BNS, when several persons participate in acts done in furtherance of a common intention, each is liable as though they performed the whole act. They shared a common intention: eliminating the other heirs and preventing discovery. Therefore, both would be liable under S.103 read with S.3(5) BNS. Conspiracy is the agreement to commit an illegal act, even if the act is carried out in parts or by different hands. Grace and Carlos demonstrate agreement in common object, complementary killings, and attempts to silence investigations. Creating a strong case for S.61(2) of BNS.

Cases involving multiple offenders and concealed actus reus highlight the need for stronger investigative capacity. Immediate scene sealing, controlled entry logs, and prohibition on touching weapons, standards laid down in the DFSS Handbook on Crime Scene Management,^[3] would have prevented the staged-suicide manipulation. Digital-evidence mapping protocols on device seizure and monitoring of logs and communications which will enable reconstruction of coordinated movements and communications. The subsequent killing illustrates the need to deploy witness protection under India’s Witness Protection Scheme,^[4] including relocation and police protection. Finally, specialised homicide-conspiracy units, such as those trained under UNODC’s Punjab programme,^[5] which has been trained in conspiracy identification.

Murder Mystery is a reminder that the law of homicide is more than just a list of crimes. It reveals the way in which human behavior, grudges, secret, and concealed decisions can result in deadly courses of activity. It shows how personal acts can be put together to form one devastating scheme, and how the law needs to unwind it very attentively. The blackout, the act of pretending to commit suicide and the muted witnesses or hindrances all indicate that it is not only the definition of murder but the demonstration of the same when the truth is concealed. Ultimately it is very much explicit that justice will only serve when the investigation remains ahead of lies.

^[1] Notaires de France, ‘Order of succession and inheritance tax’ https://www.notaires.fr/en/donation-succession/succession/order-succession-and-inheritance-tax accessed 10th  December 2025.

^[2] State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253.

^[3] Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS), Ministry of Home Affairs, Handbook on Crime Scene Management (Government of India) http://dfs.nic.in/pdfs/crime%20scene%20manual%20full_organized.pdf accessed 10 December 2025.

^[4] Ministry of Home Affairs, Witness Protection Scheme 2018 (Government of India 2018) https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/Documents_PolNGuide_finalWPS_08072019%5B1%5D.pdf  accessed 10 December 2025.

^[5] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, ‘Special Homicide Investigation Units Begin Work in Punjab’ (UNODC 2019) https://www.unodc.org/copak/en/Stories/SP2/special-homicide-investigation-units-begin-work-in-punjab.html accessed 10 December 2025.