EMPEROR Vs. NISHI KANTA BANIKYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Nishi Kanta Banikya was tried by the Sessions Judge of Faridpur with the aid of a jury on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found the accused not guilty of the charge in respect of which he was triad. The learned Sessions Judge being unable to agree with that verdict has made the present reference to this Court under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts of the case are very clearly and fully set out in the learned Judge's charge to the jury and also in the letter of reference which he has submitted to this Court and it is not necessary to set out those facts over again in my judgment. Shortly stated, the prosecution case was to the effect that owing to ill-feeling which the accused entertained towards the deceased Rai Mohan De, for certain reasons which will be detailed hereafter, the accused killed the deceased on the 10 January, 1924, by administering poison in the dal and milk which the deceased was to take and which the deceased did admittedly take. The deceased was the cook and also the gomastha in the shop of the accused. He took the food at about 9 a. m. of the 10 January, 1924, but felt unwell and began vomiting even before ha had completely finished his meal and notwithstanding the efforts made to bring him round he died at about 5 p. m. on the same day. The first information of the occurrence was lodged at about 1 a. m. on the 11 January, 1924, and upon that an Investigation having been started and completed the accused was sent up and tried as aforesaid.

(3.) Now there are certain facts in this case which have been clearly established upon the evidence. That the deceased became ill soon after he had taken his meals which consisted of rice, dal and milk, are facts which cannot be doubted or disputed. This has been spoken to by a number of witnesses to whose evidence we need not specifically refer. It has also been established by the evidence of Dr. R.C. Dutt the Assistant Surgeon who made a post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, and also Upon the report of the Chemical Examiner that arsenic was detected in the viscera vomit and other matters. There is another fact which also has been proved in this case to our satisfaction and that is this, viz., that on the 11th January, 1924, when the Sub-Inspector arrived after having received the first information of this occurrence he was shown a box in the shop of the accused and ha took charge of the articles that were in the box. In the box were found some phials and a tin deps which on examination appeared to contain various compounds of arsenic. Arsenic was also detected in the iron pan, the brass thalla and some other articles that were found in the house. All these as I have said, clearly point to the fact that the deceased died of arsenic poisoning and that arsenic or other compounds of arsenic were found in the box in the shop room belonging to the accused.