MOYILA KURMIAH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, M. Kurmiah appeals against his conviction of the murder of one Mahalakshmi.

(2.) On the 3rd May last, the body of an adult female was found in a very decomposed state in a pond, and it was identified as that of Mahalakshmi by some of her relations. The proof of identification is not altogether satisfactory, and on that ground, the assessors acquitted the accused. The Sessions Judge, however, held that the identification was sufficient. I agree with the Medical Officer that the body itself could hardly have b?en identified owing to its decomposition, but I think that the body has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt to be that of Mahalakshmi by the evidence which shows that the cloth (Material Object No. 4) that was on it, and the cloth (Material Object No. 2) and the string of beads, (Material Object No. 1) found on the bank close by the pond, belonged to her, and by the fact that certain jewels which she was wearing before the murder were traced shortly after the murder to the possession of the accused, who had had improper relations with her and who was with her on the evening before she disappeared, and who gives no satisfactory account of his possession of the jewels. Mahalakshmi, though only 18 or 20 years of age, had been married no less than 4 times and had abandoned all her husbands after a more or less short experience, She had neither parents nor brothers nor sisters, but an uncle looked after her in a general way. The accused was her second husband, but she abandoned him after eight months, and married Korikana Sanyasi. Him she also abandoned, and about the middle of April last, she was summarily married by the village Magistrate to Appiah, but she left him after four days, and the evidence is that she was in the habit of practically living at the threshing floor of her former husband, (the accused), though the latter had in the meantime married another woman, Ademma. The evidence is that Ademma lived in the accused s house, and neither quarrelled with him, nor with Mahalakshmi on account of the latter sleeping at the accused s threshing floor, whither the accused also used to go to sleep.

(3.) The pond was some 6 yards long by 5 yards broad, and the water was only about a yard in depth. The feet and legs of the body up to the knees were sunk in the sand or mud of the pond, and there was a large stone tied in the cloth that was round the waist of the corpse, and another large stone was found placed upon the knees of the body. There were no jewels on the corpse when found. The body was found on the 3rd May and suspicion fell on the accused, who was arrested the same day after the inquest. In consequence of information given by him to the Head Constable, the latter at once went to the wife of the accused, Ademma, who produced the jewels, Material Objects Nos. 7(1) and (2). These jewels are gold nose rings (called kanmulu), with a cut across the centre, and they are fully identified (by unimpeachable evidence referred to by the Sessions Judge in paragraphs Nos. 8 and 18 of his judgment) as jewels which had been made for, and given to, Mahalakshmi on her marriage to Appiah some ten days before the date when the murder must have taken place, which is otherwise fixed as the night of the 27th April. The accused, in his statement to the Committing Magistrate, which he adhered to at the trial, stated that these kammulu which were before the Court were given by him to Ademma to hide for fear of robbers, but he denied that they had belonged to Mahalakshmi. Ademma, however, states that these kammulu were given to her by the accused three days before she gave them up to the Police, and, as already stated, there is unimpeachable evidence that these jewels were made for Mahalakshmi when she was married to Appiah some ten days before her murder.