EMPEROR Vs. ISMAIL KHADIRSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case was charged with having murdered his wife at Gersappa in the Kanara District either on March 31, 1927, or during the early morning of -April 1. It is common ground that his wife was sleeping with him in the verandah of the accused's house, and that next day her body was found in the river adjoining the accused's house with a wound upon the throat, which is described as a gaping flesh wound four inches long, and one inch wide and about half an inch deep in the lower half of the wound, while superficial in the upper half. The accused went and gave information in the morning about his wife being missing to two police- officers in the village. But although they then went and saw the body, it was not actually taken out till after 4 p. m. that same day, because they waited until the police patil of a neighbouring village came. After the Panchnama had been drawn up, the body was sent to Honavar in order that the post-mortem examination might be made. That was made between 3 and 5 P.M. next day. The Medical Officer was of opinion that death was not due to drowning, but he could not give a definite opinion as to the cause of death owing to decomposition of the corpse. The Sub-Inspector arrived on the evening of the 2nd, and commenced his investigation on the 3 with a panch. He found blood marks on the river bank which were traced up a cattle path to the accused's house. There blood marks were found on the entrance posts of the compound and inside the house. A blood-stained koita was also found and attached. After further investigation the accused was arrested on April 5. He has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge, who agrees with the unanimous opinion of the four assessors. The Local Government appeal from this acquittal.

(2.) The case of the accused is that he woke on the morning of April 1 and found his wife missing, and after going to do some business he felt some suspicion about her absence, so he went to the spot at the river where she usually washed her clothes. He says he went alone and found certain saris in wet condition on a stone on the bank, which he recognised as his. He returned home and informed the witness Sherif Hassan Kolkar about what had happened. Then he, Sherif Hassan Kolkar and the Kazi went to the river and saw the dead body of his wife floating on the river, whereupon he informed the police about it. He admits that the police attached certain blood-stained articles in his house, but says that he did not know anything about them. On the other hand, the case for the prosecution is that there was quarrelling between the accused and his wife for a few days before this occurrence, and the prosecution rely upon this and other circumstantial evidence as proving the accused's guilt under Section 102, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) This other evidence can be classified as (1) incriminating conduct in his fabricating evidence that the woman had been washing cloth's and so might have slipped or been pushed into the river, and: in his giving false information to the police that his wife was missing, without adding that he had seen her body; (2) the evidence of two witnesses as to their having seen him in the vicinity of the river on the morning of April 1, especially the evidence of one of them that he saw a load being carried by three men down to the river at about 4 A.M., and though he did not recognise them one of them went back towards the accus-ed's house; (3) the evidence about the blood stains that I have already mentioned; and (4) the evidence as to the wound on the deceased's throat and the opinion of the Medical Officer that her death was not due to drowning.