MT SUKNI CHAMAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 374, Criminal P.C., made by the Sessions Judge of the Muzaffarpur division sitting at Motihari for confirmation of a sentence of death passed by him upon Sukni Chamain for the murder of her husband Tapsi Chamar. There is also an appeal preferred by Sukni Chamain; and we have heard the reference and the appeal together. Sukni is a young woman of about 17. Two years ago she was married to Jagan Chamar (P.W. 15), son of Sheoratan Chamar (P.W. 14). But as she used to leave the side of her husband when he fell asleep at night, he divorced her. In July last she was married to Tapsi Chamar of Dhumnagar about two miles from her father's house. About midday, on 28 July, six days after her wedding with Tapsi Chamar, she cried out that her husband had been killed. The cries at once brought on the scene her neighbours Ghunia Chamain and Patia Chamain, P. Ws. 10 and 11, whose houses are within ten cubits of Tapsi's house. These Chamains found Sukni wearing a yellow sari and a red jhula, with blood marks on both of them. Ghunia speaks of seeing blood on Sukni's hands and feet as well. Sukni was not shedding tears. Her husband was lying dead, obviously killed very recently, and in the presence of Ghunia and Patia, Sukni changed into another dirty sari and had a wash. Ghunia and Patia were followed by Patia's nephew and fosterson Mangal Chamar (P.W. 12), and he also saw enough of the change of sari and the wash by Sukni to entitle him to speak to them as he does. These witnesses left the scene just as Kitab Mian (P.W. 8), one of the chaukidars of the village, was coming up with Gulzar Mian (P.W. 9), another Chaukidar. The Chaukidars found that the woman had just had a wash. They also saw the dead body of Tapsi lying in the room; and then Kitab left Gulzar in charge of the scene and fetched Mahangu (P.W. 3), the chaukidar of the beat. Mahangu came up, saw the dead body of Tapsi and then went with Kitab to the thana of Bettiah, four miles away, where he lodged an information which concludes: It appears that some one has killed him (Tapsi) just now, in consequence of which he has died.

(2.) In this information, Ex. 4, it is stated (and the statement is repeated in the evidence given in Court) that Sukni, when questioned, had said that she had gone outside to relieve nature and on coming back had seen that her husband had been killed by somebody, she did not know by whom. It is also stated that Kitab had seen that her feet and hands were wet and that there was some blood on her jhula. The Sub-Inspector arrived on the scene at about 4-30 in the afternoon. The usual inquest was held in the presence of Sastidat Dubey, (P.W. 5), an assessor punch from a neighbouring village, who happened to be passing by and was stopped by the Sub-Inspector and one Ramghulam Mahton. The house was also searched in their presence, and a garasi full of fresh blood was discovered from under a granary in the room in which Tapsi was lying dead in a pool of blood. There was a large number of incised injuries found on Tapsi, and the Sub- Inspector speaks of the recovery of a yellow sari with blood-stains before the discovery of the garasi. The evidence is that this yellow sari was the sari which Sukni had received from Tapsi at the time of the wedding six or seven days previously. The post mortem showed that Tapsi had no less than fifteen incised injuries, three on the face, three on the chest, one on the shoulder and eight on the neck. Three of the injuries on the neck looked like one big wound and were very long and deep, cutting more than one of the cervical vertebrae together with the blood vessels, trachea, oesophagus and larynx. In the opinion of the Assistant Surgeon who made the post mortem, death was due to shook and haemorrhage resulting from the three injuries on the neck. In the room the Sub-Inspector had found blood not only on the floor but also on the wall and the granary up to a height of six feet. On the 30 July Sukni was produced before the Magistrate at Bettiah as a confessing prisoner and was given one day's time for reflection. On the 31 Babu Jamuna Prasad, a Magistrate of the 1 class, recorded her confession after giving her a particular full warning under Section 164, Criminal P.C. In this confession Sukni stated: I am possessed by two evil spirits. I was married to Tapsi at Dhumanagar six days previous (to the occurrence). Four days ago, one of the two spirits slept with me at noon. My husband Tapsi came with grass and slept in the house by my side. The spirit pressed me (saying) as to why I was making him sleep by my side and that I should kill him (my husband) otherwise he (the spirit) would kill me. Thus I lost my senses and cut my husband Tapsi with a garasi. When I regained my senses, I began to cry. On this people turned up. Ghunia Chamain and Batunbahu (wife of Batun) came. I narrated all the facts to them. Also a, day before the occurrence a spirit had possessed me. I regained my senses by means of exercising. I did not kill my husband while in senses.

(3.) The evidence of the witnesses to whom we have referred has been scrutinised before us, but nothing has been shown to us which will throw any doubt on the truth of statements made by them. (The judgment then discussed the evidence and proceeded). We do not think that the confession gives any ground at all for suspecting that the Sub-Inspector had tutored her or brought any pressure to bear upon her or had offered her any inducement. The contents of the confession, the story of being possessed by two evil spirits and so on, can hardly be said to be such as any Sub-Inspector could have suggested. What is more, Patia, who is by no means unfriendly to Sukni, speaks of a strange incident of the previous day when she was cleaning Sukni's hair and Sukni began to shiver and behave strangely and closed her eyes (though she did not faint) and said that she was a netua of Chainpatia and only came to a ghanta or two afterwards, after one Rajkumar Chamar (who was not called as a witness in the case) had sprinkled water on her face. This supports the story of exercising that is mentioned in the confession. But even apart from the confession, we have in the present case the facts that Sukni and Tapsi were alone in the house, that Tapsi is not known to have had any enemy, and that there was a garasi with fresh blood on it which goes some little way to suggest (as the learned Sessions Judge has shown) that the deed was not done by an outsider, the blood on Sukni's clothes, particularly the yellow sari, which (as the Sessions Judge found) looked as if the blood had spurted on it, and lastly the circumstance that though there were so many injuries on the neck, the neck was not cut which suggests, though it does not absolutely prove, that the injuries were inflicted by a weak female. The theory that Tapsi may have been murdered by an unknown person while Sukni was away relieving nature also becomes difficult to believe when we take into account her behaviour after her alleged discovery of the murder: she calls out to neighbours, but none of themfinds her weeping though she was a bride of but six days. So far as is known whether to Sukni or to the witnesses in the case, Tapsi had no enemy; and his poverty also helps to make the story of murder by an unknown person extremely improbable. These considerations taken all together point to but one conclusion.