IN RE: SAINAMBU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been found guilty of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, for having murdered, on 6 -8 -1951, a girl by name Umal Regina, aged 7 years, by cutting her with an 'aruval', and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram division. The prosecution case is briefly as follows:

(2.) THE girl left her house after taking her midday meal for attending her classes in the school. At about 4 or 4 -30 p.m. she and two other school children by name Mahariba and Ibrahim were seen going to the house of the accused and a little later Mahariba and Ibrahim returned, but the deceased girl did not return. At the time of sunset that evening, the girl was seen in the house of the accused. That night she did not return and persons who went in search of her could not trace her. The next day her dead body was seen in a channel with cut injuries. Her earrings had been removed. At about 12 -1(sic) p.m. on 7 -8 -1951 a complaint was given to the police at Tiruvadanai by P. W. 1, a relation of the deceased. The Sub -Inspector P. W. 13 reached the village at 4 p.m. and took up the investigation. He also examined witnesses. The body was sent for post mortem examination and the medical evidence shows that she had as many as twelve wounds on her person which were very serious in character and the doctor was of opinion that death was due to shock and haemorrhage.

(3.) THE question then arises whether the other evidence in the case is sufficient to convict the accused. M. Os. 1 and 1(a), the pair of earrings worn by the deceased girl when she left the house have been produced by the accused after having dug out the same from a place near the fence of her house. These were recovered as a result of a statement made by her under Section 27, Evidence Act. It seems to us that the production of these material objects would not by itself be sufficient to charge the accused with the crime of murder. The evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5, 9 and 10 is not sufficient to show that it was due to the act of the accused that the deceased came by her death. We are, therefore, of opinion that the offence of murder has not been brought home to the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302, Penal Code.