PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Patna who affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge at Berhampur who had convicted the appellant of the murder of one Kurree Nukaraju and sentenced him to death. The accused, his wife, his wife's brother, and his clerk living at his house were charged with the murder before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Chatrapur, in May a June, 1937. After hearing the evidence the examining Magistrate discharged all the accused holding that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charge. Thereupon the Sessions Judge Berhampur exercising his powers under the Criminal P. C., called upon the accused to show cause why they should not be committed for trial and in July 1937 ordered the present accused and his wife to be committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for offences under Secs.of the Indian Indian Penal Code 120-B (conspiring to murder), 302 (murder) and 201 (causing evidence of an offence to disappear). At the trial the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant's wife of all the charges but convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to death. The appeal is based upon admission of certain evidence said to be made inadmissible by provisions of the Criminal P. C. and the Evidence Act : and is further maintained upon the contention that whether the disputed evidence be admitted or not and certainly if it ought to have been rejected there is no evidence sufficient to support this conviction.

(2.) On Tuesday 23 March 1937, at about noon the body of the deceased man was found in a steel trunk in a third class compartment at Puri the terminus of a branch line on the Bengal Nagpur Railway, where the trunk had been left unclaimed. The body had been cut into seven portions, and the medical evidence left no doubt that the man had been murdered. A few days elapsed before identification but eventually the body of the deceased was identified by his widow. He was a man of about 40 and had been married about 22 years. He had been a peon in the service of the Dewan of Pithapur one of whose daughters was the wife of the accused. It was suggested by the prosecution that before her marriage and about 19 years before the events in question the wife of the accused then a girl of about 13 had had an intrigue with the deceased: Four letters were produced by the deceased's widow purporting to be signed by the girl bearing date 1918 supporting this suggestion. The Judge was not satisfied with the evidence of handwriting : there was no other evidence worth considering in support: and this suggested motive must be definitely rejected. The fact however remains that the deceased was in possession of these four documents purporting to be signed by the wife of the accused. About 1919 the accused and his wife were married. They went to live at Berhampur about 250 miles from Pithapur. About 1933 they returned to Pithapur where they appear to have stayed with her father. They seem at that time to have been in need of money : and during 1936 the accused's wife borrowed from the deceased man at various times and in relatively small sums an amount of Rs. 3000 at interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum. About 50 letters and notes proving these transactions signed by the accused's wife were found in the deceased man's house at Pithapur after his death. On Saturday 20 March 1937, the deceased man received a letter the contents of which were not accurately proved but it was reasonably clear that it invited him to come that day or next day to Berhampur. It was unsigned. The widow said that on that day her husband showed her a letter and said that he was going to Berhampur as the appellant's wife had written to him and told him to go and receive payment of his dues. This evidence was objected to : it was admitted as falling under the provisions of S. 32 (i), Evidence Act. The admission of this evidence is one of the grounds of the appeal, and will be discussed later. The deceased left his house on Sunday 21 March in time to catch the train for Berhampur. On Tuesday 23 March his body was found in the train at Puri as already stated.

(3.) Police suspicion does not appear to have been directed against the accused and his household until 4 April on which date the police visited the house, examined the inhabitants and obtained a statement from the accused the admissibility of which is one of the principal grounds of the appeal. They searched the premises, as is said, for incriminating documents only, and in the afternoon arrested the four persons already mentioned. In addition to evidence of the facts above stated the prosecution adduced the evidence of two employees in a shop at Berhampur where trunks were made and sold who gave evidence that on Monday, 22nd March, in the afternoon the dhobie or washerman of the accused called at the shop and ordered a trunk ; that a trunk was taken to the accused's house and shown to him and his wife. It was rejected as being too large, and a smaller one of the size of the trunk in question was then delivered to the dhobie at the shop and he took it away. The transaction was entered in the rough day book and in the fair copy book of the shop as of the day in question: and though the trial Judge thought that the entry had been tampered with so as to insert the height of the trunk the trial Judge and the High Court both of whom inspected the entries were satisfied that they genuinely established the sale of such a trunk on that day. The witnesses identified the trunk in which the body was found as being the trunk of their manufacture which was sold in the circumstances stated on the Monday afternoon. The dhobie was called and proved the purchase of a trunk after the rejection by the accused of the first one brought from the shop. He however placed the date as being on a Saturday. The Judge thought his evidence was unreliable and said that he ignored it. He however found the sale of the particular trunk was proved to have taken place as stated by the witnesses on Monday, 22nd March.