The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness evidence, dying declaration, and naming of the accused by the deceased to establish guilt, as well as considering provocation and quarrel as mitigating factors in determining the offense.

JUDGMENT

Walmsley, J. - The accused Satyendra Kumar Dutt Choudhuri was placed on his trial upon a charge of murder. The Jury was unanimous in finding him not guilty of murder, and by a majority of four to one it found him not guilty of the lesser offence of culpable homicide. The learned Judge felt himself unable to accept this verdict, and, consequently, made a reference to this Court under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The case has some remarkable features, not only in the bold facts of the occurrence as told by the prosecution but also in the conduct of the proceedings in the Court of Session.

3. The accused belongs to the village of Richi and he and his co-sharers are Zemindars of the village. The Zemindars are divided into two hostile groups, Nagendra and Dwijendra forming one group, and the accused and Khirod the other group. These two groups are frequently quarrelling, but they share the same bari. Immediately adjoining this bari is a bari occupied by Amar Kinkar Bhattacharjee and his brothers Prakash and Hara Kinkar.

4. Natabar Tarsa, the deceased, used to be employed as a servant by Satyendra, the accused, but on account of some difference he left his service and entered the service of Amar Kinkar and Prakash about six months before the occurrence.

5. The relations between the Bhattacharjee and the Dutts seem to have varied. Amar Kinkar says that he and Prakash have always been on friendly terms with Satyendra, in fact Amar Kinkar acted as his priest and his Pleader until just before the occurrence; Hara Kinkar, on the other hand, has been employed at different times by both Nagendra and Satyendra but Satyendra is said to have regarded him as a declared enemy.

6. On the day of occurrence the Bhattacharjee brothers were celebrating their mother's Sradh, and Satyendra wanted Amar Kinkar to keep up the old feud between himself (Amar Kinkar) land Hara Kinkar, and it is said that he tried to enforce his wishes by refusing to lend utensils for the ceremony, and by causing notice of execution proceedings in regard to a decree obtained by his aunt against Amar Kinkar and Prakash to be served when the courtyard was crowded with guests. These measures were useless and Amar Kinkar and Hara Kinkar did for a time at any rate patch up their quarrel. It does not seem to be suggested that Satyendra bore Amar Kinkar any grudge for taking Natabar into his service, but it is said that relations between Natabar and Satyendra continued to be strained.

7. To return to the occurrence, by the afternoon the hosts were entertaining their humbler guests, and there were sitting in the courtyard two lines of Naths and Dhobis, and at the North end of the line that ran North-South was Natabar, the deceased: all were partaking of chira and dahi when suddenly the accused entered the courtyard and thrust a spear into Natabar's left side with such force as almost to transfix him. The accused then disappeared, and no one tried to stay him.

8. Amar Kinkar shortly afterwards went to the Thana, three miles away: he told his story about 4-30 P.M. and it was recorded by the Senior Sub-Inspector, Satish Chandra Maitra, who sent the junior officer Purna Chandra Dutta to investigate. Purna Chandra found a considerable number of people present, and the first thing he did was to record the dying declaration of Natabar, and a few minutes after he had finished Natabar died. Before dawn he left the village with the dead body and then examined some witnesses at the Thana on the morning of the 24th. After that he was engaged on other work and nothing more was done until the 29th when the Senior Sub-Inspector went to the place accompanied by two superior officers. The accused was not found by either Sub-Inspector, and it was not until April 26th that he gave himself up to the Magistrate.

9. As to the time, place and cause of death, I do not think there can be any doubt. Amar Kinkar's evidence as to the time is preferable to that of another witness w