EMPEROR Vs. TADUTURU POLIGADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Allu Akkamma by throttling her on 4 December 1938, and it is well to remember that the charge is specific, that the murder was caused by throttling. On the morning of 4 December the deceased was proceeding from Goladi, a village which will be found on the south of the plan, Ex. M, towards a village called Yedlavalasa, which is not marked on the plan, but which it is conceded is beyond Mettavalasa which is to the north of the plan. The learned Judge has summarized the facts in this case very fully and we may say at the outset that we are largely in agreement with him with regard to his findings of fact. The deceased set out on that morning according to P.W. 5, her brother-in-law, at about 8 A.M. and she was seen about one furlong from Goladi village walking in front of a man who P.W. 16 was almost but not quite certain was the accused. She was wearing a black sari similar to M.O. 2, for that is no doubt what P.W. 16 means when he says that she was wearing M.O. 2. Her later history is spoken to by P.Ws. 17 and 18. P.W. 17 says that at about 9 o clock he saw her near the uplands between two hillocks. He says he was going to Goladi with change to pay coolies. He also saw the accused. He was 100 yards in front of the deceased when he saw him. If that is so, between the place where P.W. 16 saw the accused and the deceased and the hillocks the accused had overtaken the deceased. P.W. 18 who also was in the neighbourhood of the hillocks says that he saw the accused going towards Mettavalasa and behind him a woman with a black sari similar to M.O. 2. He says he saw P.W. 17 going towards Goladi. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence is more than sufficient to show that on that morning the deceased left her house and proceeded along the road, and we think too that the accused was sufficiently identified as walking at one time behind and at a later stage in front of her. That was the last heard of the deceased. She did not return to her village and there seems to be little doubt that the next seen of her was by P.W. 4, a little boy, who on Tuesday 6 December went to the neighbourhood of P.W. 3's field, which is adjacent to the road, to cut grass. He said he saw a person lying down with a black sari covered over the face in the cholam field of P.W. 3. He went away because he thought it was P.W. 3 watching for persons who had gone to cub grass without his permission. P.W. 3 on the Thursday next went to the field and there discovered the body, or rather half the body, of the deceased. She has been satisfactorily identified and no argument was seriously put before us that that was not her body. But by that time the body was in two pieces, one-half of which was found a considerable distance to the west of the point where the upper half was found, which was at the point B, on the plan near P.W. 3's field.

(2.) It is naturally important to ascertain the cause of death in a case of murder. P.W. 2, the Assistant Surgeon of Bobbili Local Fund Hospital, has given evidence about it. He has described the state of this body, which it must be remembered was in two pieces, and he quite definitely says : "I cannot give the cause of death owing to the fragmentary nature of the corpse and the advanced nature of decomposition." The tongue was protruding apparently. He says that this might have been due to strangling, but it might equally well have been due to decomposition. He does however make one interesting statement, namely that there was a stab on this woman, three-fourths of an inch long, on the left side of the chest between the sixth and seventh ribs. He was unable to trace it further owing to the fact that the lung underneath it had decomposed. He says that might have been caused by the tusk of a wild boar. In this connexion it is evident there are wild boars in the neighbourhood, because after seeing what was supposed to be P.W. 3 concealed under a black sari, P.W. 4 actually joined a hunting party who were after wild pigs. So we are in this position, that it is not possible to say on the evidence before us how this woman met her death.

(3.) The police were obviously at a loss. They seem to have suspected a lot of people although they were not willing to admit it. P.W. 6 says that at first P.W. 5, the brother-in-law of the deceased, was suspected and was arrested as also were three other persons, but this is denied by P.W. 20, the Sub-Inspector, who says that he never arrested any other person. He did, he admits, suspect P.W. 5 and some gamblers of Mettavalasa. But in this connexion it is right to say that apparently in this district the police take a rather strange view as to what constitutes an arrest. For reasons which naturally are not known, being no doubt part of police investigation, the accused was later arrested, he was arrested by P.W. 20, and we use that expression advisedly because what happened was he was taken from Goladi village where he was repeatedly questioned by P.W. 20 in custody to Mettavalasa at 11 or 12 noon. From then or from an earlier stage, because there is a variation in the evidence as to the exact time when he was taken there, it is evident that this man was subjected to persistent questioning by the Circle Inspector. P.W. 9 states that the Circle Inspector questioned him from 9 or 10 in the morning till 1 or 2 in the after noon. At first the accused denied everything, but after persistent questioning he gave the statement in Ex. J at 1 or 2 P.M. Then says P.W. 9 the accused was arrested after he had given the statement in Ex. J. That was not the only thing that happened. The Circle Inspector seems to have thought it well to make a production of P.Ws. 17 and 18 before the accused and examined them for the second time in his presence. P.W. 10 also states - and he is the president of the Panchayat Court and the Co-operative Union - "The Sub-Inspector of police or the Circle Inspector of Police arrested him formally at 12-30 P.M. or so." Now in our opinion there is not the slightest doubt that this man was taken in charge by the police at Goladi village, questioned there and taken to Mettavalasa and there closely questioned for a period of some hours. This seems to us, apart from any other aspect of the case, to be entirely contrary to the orders issued to the Madras police relating to investigation of offences. Para. 303 is most, explicit that while questions to persons who might give useful information are proper, when once an accused person has been arrested the police are strictly forbidden to interrogate him or press him to make any statement, and we consider that it is tantamount to reducing this paragraph to a farce for the police to take a man, hold him for a long period, subject him to incessant question, press him to confess, as we think happened, and then after they had extracted what they wanted, go through the solemn process of formally arresting him. The importance of this is that under this process the accused made a statement which is recorded in Ex. J. It is as follows: Last Sunday Allu Akkamma, a Golla woman of Goladi Village, was coming 20 yards behind me. I threw her down and throttled her and she died. Then I removed her two gold nose rings, two gold ear rings and four gold top ear rings. On the next day while it was still dark I secreted them (the ornaments) after tying them up in small rags, in the row of pots in a corner of my sister Poli's house in Mugada. I will pick out and give the ornaments if you come with me.