M. F. REGO Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS . Rego and Driver Scrowston were committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Jubbulpore on charges of abetment of the murder of Mr. Rego, the husband of Mrs. Rego, and of murdering him respectively. The learned Sessions Judge amended the charge against Mrs. Rego in the first instance converting the abetment into that of actual commission of murder and by the addition of another charge in the alternative, namely, giving false information that there had been a burglary at her house with the intention of screening the murder punishable under Section 201, I. P. C., and later by an addition of the charge of conspiracy with Scrowston to commit the murder. Both the accused persons were adjudged guilty and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. The prisoners have filed two separate appeals. The judgment in this appeal will govern the disposal of the other appeal also. The deceased Mr. Rego, a Roman Catholic, married Mrs. Rego, who was of Russian or Polish origin, in the year 1924 and lived with her in a bungalow in Napier Town, Jubbulpore. On the night of 20th August 1932 he was found dead due to injuries inflicted on the head. At about 3 a. m. Mrs. Rego went about behaving in a wild and erratic manner to the bungalows of the neighbours informing them of the circumstances of the tragedy, and eventually at 4.45 a.m. she made a report about the occurrence at the police outpost.

(2.) IT appears that Mrs. Rego had a fascination for British soldiers of the Cantonment at Jubbulpore. She had numerous admirers of whom one was Sergeant Sebborn, who was in Jubbulpore in 1930 and left for England towards the close of that year. For some months prior to the murder she had developed illicit intimacy with Driver Scrowston of the 90th Field Battery Royal Artillery, which strangely enough culminated in a bigamous marriage solemnized on 10th June 1932 at the Wesleyan Church at Jubbulpore. The fact that Mrs. Rego had her husband alive was concealed from Rev. Brooke, the Chaplain of the Church, who was led to believe that she was then a widow of her previous Russian husband Falkoffski. Mr. Rego became aware of this illegal marriage but took no legal action and on the contrary did his best to hush up the matter. Scrowston continued his liaison with Mrs. Rego as is evident from the fact that on 30th June he was found locked up in the sweepers' quarter of Mrs. Rego's bungalow. Although he was punished by the military authorities for being out of bounds he persisted in his visits to Mrs. Rego during the hours when Mr. Rego was away at his office, he being employed as Supervisor in the office of the Divisional Engineer in the G. I. P. Ry. On 25th June 1932 Mr. Rego received a letter addressed to Mrs. S. Scrowston, C/o Mr.. Rego. This letter, it is alleged, was deliberately addressed in the manner it was with the intention that Mr. Rego should peruse the contents and be disposed to divorce his wife. The letter bears the signature of one Valentine Harrison, who, in the role of a lover, expresses his surprise at her bigamous marriage with Scrowston and seeks to induce Mrs. Rego to give up her connexion with Scrowston and accompany the writer to Calcutta. This letter was proved to have been written by one Rolph in the interest of Scrowston. Notwithstanding the bigamous marriage, the provocative letter and the objectionable conduct of Scrowston, Mr. Rego, to all intents and purposes, maintained his relations with his wife as if they were normal.

(3.) NOR was the learned Sessions Judge disposed to draw any adverse inference as to Mrs. Rego's conduct after the murder from her wild and hysterical behaviour (after the murder). As regards-Scrowston's conduct during the night of the occurrence, the learned Sessions. Judge regards the fact of Scrowston having been seen at the Cenotaph at about 1 a. m. coupled with the further fact that while nothing was found on a search of his kit on the 20th morning, on a search two days later a purse containing a gold watch and chain with a pendant, two pairs of cuff links, some studs and a tie pin and a gold finger ring were recovered, as two very suspicious circumstances against him. Under the head (c) several statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Rego revealing his mental attitude towards his wife were admitted under Section 32(1), Evidence Act, and under the head (d) various incriminating statements alleged to have been made by Mrs. Rego before and after the murder were admitted. It is mainly on the strength of these statements attributed to Mr. Rego and Mrs. Rego that the inference of guilt is drawn against both the appellants. In appeal it is strenuously pressed that neither the Sessions Judge nor this Court has jurisdiction to pass sentence of death on Scrowston who is a European British subject. The argument is advanced that Section 34(a), which has been added by Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act 12 of 1923. has not acquired the force of law on account of the absence of any words in the section to indicate that the previous approval of the Secretary of State in Council as required by Section 65(3), Government of India Act of 1919, had been given. Having regard to the presumption as to the regularity and validity of all the laws passed by the legislature the burden was incumbent on the contestant to prove that there was no such previous approval. Whatever doubt there could be in the matter has been resolved by the information supplied to us by the learned Government Advocate that such approval was given by a telegram No. P-5020, dated 29th December 1922, from the Secretary of State for India, London to the Viceroy. The contents of the telegram are clear to show that under Section 65(3), Government of India Act, approval of the Secretary of State in Council was given to the introduction of the legislation which resulted in the addition of Section 34-A and amplification of the definition of "High Courts" given in Section 4(i)(j) so as to include the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, for the purpose of trial of European British subjects. On behalf of Mrs. Rego no such contention is possible as she is not a European British subject. In fact both she and Scrowston moved the Sessions Court, under Section 446, Criminal Procedure Code, for being tried with the aid of assessors under the special provision of Section 284-A on 14th October 1932, on which date the committal proceedings were received by the Sessions Judge.