LAWS(PVC)-1911-1-29

RAM SANEHI Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On January 03, 1911
RAM SANEHI Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Sanehi Brahman has been convicted of the offence of murder of one Musammat. Sheoratni, his wife, and sentenced to death. The case has been submitted to us by the Court of Session at Banda for confirmation of sentence. The prisoner has appealed and has been represented by, a learned Vakil of this Court. The plea taken in the memorandum of appeal is to the effect that the evidence on the record is insufficient for, the purpose of bringing home the offence of murder to the appellant. In a paper sent by the convict from jail, it is further said that the accused knows nothing about how his wife was killed. He says that he was absent and on his return he heard that some body had killed his wife and that he went to the Thanadar then and there. He was arrested and sent to the Sadar.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge has gone very fully into the evidence He starts his judgment by saying that there is no direct evidence in this case and we find on looking into the record that this is correct. The evidence immediately relating to the death of Musammat Sheoratni, is to the effect that on the 29th of July, the prisoner had his meal with the rest of the family and one witness says that he had the day before spoken of an intention to go to Sundi a village where some of his relatives reside. There is no evidence showing where the prisoner spent the rest of the 29th of July but there is evidence to show that Musammat Sukhdeia saw the woman Sheoratni go into her room at sunset on the 29th, spread her bed and lie down on it. On the morning of Friday, the 29th of July, her dead body was found lying on its back in a field to the south-west of the village and by the side of a road.

(3.) The medical evidence is to the effect that the probable cause of death was asphyxia caused by heavy pressure on the upper part of the chest. There was a mark of a rope round the neck; bat the Assistant Surgeon, who conducted the post mortem examination, says that this mark was for certain made after the death of the woman.