Judgement

BOSE, J.: This is an appeal from a conviction for murder and a sentence of death. The appellant was tried by the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur, a Part C State to which the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply but to which the Indian Evidence Act does.

2. Though the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to Manipur, the trial has been substantially in accordance with the procedure laid down by that Code. But as there is no appellate tribunal in the State for a case of this kind, we have heard the appeal as a Court of Ordinary appeal and have gone into the evidence.

3. Two women were killed late in the night of 4th/5th August 1951. They were the wife and mother-in-law of the appellant. The two were not living in the appellant s house but in the house of the mother-in-law. There had been some estrangement between the husband and wife, and the wife was not at the time living with the appellant.

4. That the women were murdered is beyond dispute. They were savagely attacked with a sharp edged weapon and literally hacked to death. One had ten injuries on her person and the other eight.

5. The crime was first discovered by Bino Singh, P. W. 10. He says he heard cries in the night from the house of these women. It was then dark, so he shouted to his mother-in-law Angang Ibema Debi. P. W. 7, to bring a lamp. She did so and the two went to the house in question and found one of the women dead and the other unconscious.

Aber Singh, P.W. 9. Who heard the cries about the some time, also went to the spot and found the other two witnesses (P.Ws. 7 and 10) already there. Aber Singh (P.W. 9) and Bino Singh (P.W. 10) say they noticed a hole in the wall and also the scabbard of a Khukri. According to the latter the scabbard was wrapped in a comforter handing on a loom.

6. The news spread and Bino Singh (P.W. 10), among others, went and informed the chaukidar Mohuri Singh, P. W. 6, of what had occurred. The chaukidar first went to the scene of the occurrence and saw for himself what had happened and then he went to Police Station, about 3 1/2 miles distant, and made the First Information Report at 7 in the morning.

He tells us in his evidence that he noticed the hole in the wall when he went to see what had happened but did not notice the scabbard of the Khukri. He says he mentioned the fact that the scabbard was there in his report because Aber Singh, P. W. 9, who accompanied him to the police Station, told him that an empty scabbard of a Khukri was also lying in the house.

7. Pausing here awhile, it is curious that Bino Singh, who says he also saw a knife which has been seized and produced as Ex. P- 4, did not tell the chaukidar about the knife but only mentioned the empty scabbard. We say this because the first Information Report mentions the scabbard but not the knife. It is also a curious fact that the scabbard belongs to the chaukidar who made the report and not to the appellant.

8. The First Information Report states, among other things, that there was a hole in the wall of the house through which the murderer had entered. It also states that the scabbard of a Khukri was found there and that.

"the murderer is not yet known. It cannot be ascertained, as yet, how many persons entered and did the action".

9. Soon after this was recorded, a procession carrying two women, one dead and the other still senseless, reached the Police Station. The appellant was among them, and the Sub-Inspector, P. W. 12, tells us that he arrested the appellant immediately he came because one of his spies, whom he refused to name, told him immediately after he had recorded the First Information Report that the appellant had some enmity against the women and was probably the culprit. He says that because of this information he arrested the appellant "at the very moment he reached the police station."

10. After this, the police went to the spot and searched the place. The Sub-Inspector noticed the hole in the wall and says that the appellant drew his attention to