PATEY SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Patey Singh and Sarup Singh appeal from their convictions under S 302, I. P.C., and sentences of death. We arcs of opinion that the convictions cannot stand. As the circumstances and nature of the evidence and the relations between the parties are unusual, the evidence led for the Crown will require detailed examination.

(2.) The story for the prosecution is as follows: Jhamman Singh is a man of some position as village life goes, living in Baisanpurwa, a hamlet of Juniadpur. We are not informed as to the size of this hamlet but, so far as the evidence goes, it may have consisted of not less than half a dozen or a dozen houses. Jhamman Singh lived with his younger brother Mithu Singh whose wife Mt. Bitoli, is a young woman of twenty. These three persons are Thakurs. In the same house lived Shankar Teli with his wife Mt. Makhano or Makhania. We will refer to her as Mt. Makhano. These two persons occupied the position of servants in the house of Jhamman Singh. Next door to Jhamman Singh, in a house which came down to Jhamman Singh from his ancestors lived a woman named Mt. Parbati. She also was a dependent of Jhamman Singh. She had a son San-want Singh, who apparently lived sometimes in Jhamman Singh's house and sometimes with his mother, Mt, Parbati. Sanwant Singh was also in the employ of Jhamman Singh. Incidentally there is mention of neighbours of Jhamman Singh, but none of them play any important part in the case.

(3.) In Shib Singh Purwa, a neighbouring hamlet also appertaining to Juniadpur, lived Patey Singh and Sarup Singh the appellants. Patey Singh is in no way connected, so far as the evidence goes, with the family of Jhamman Singh. He is said at some time to have had - some property, as to how much there is no indication, but at the time of the events with which we are concerned he had lost all that property and is said to have been living as a very humble sweet-seller wandering round the neighbourhood selling his sweets.