The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the purpose of questioning the accused under S.282 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that the accused's answers should not be regarded as evidence if there are no incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution's evidence.

1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1124 on the file of the Sessions Court of Kottayam is the appellant. She was tried in the court below for the offence of murder under S.301 of the Travancore Penal Code. The charge against her was that she threw her own child, five months old, into a well in a compound not frequented by anybody at about 7.30 p.m. on 22nd Karkadagam 1123. The evidence disclosed the fact that she was a married woman. Her husband had abandoned her eight or ten years before the date of occurrence. She gave birth to an illegitimate child, after which her own people disowned her. The result was that she had to maintain herself and her little child by begging in the streets. The suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution is that she found the child an encumbrance in these circumstances and, therefore, she resorted to this drastic method of putting an end to the life of the child and thus getting rid of that encumbrance.

2. The evidence adduced at the trial did not establish the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. This is made clear by the learned judge in his judgment. He divides the evidence into two wide classes. One set of witnesses referred to the fact that shortly before dusk on the date of occurrence, the accused was seen going by the side of the well with the child in her arms. Later on she was seen alone without the child. There was no person who witnessed the child being thrown into the well by the mother. The other evidence consisted of alleged extra judicial confessions made by her when questioned as to what had happened to her child. With regard to both these classes of evidence the learned judge makes the following observations:

'As regards the first set, even if their evidence is accepted it will only lead to some sort of suspicion. As regards the second set, I am not inclined to place any reliance on it'.

Then the learned judge gives his reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses who have spoken to the second phase by saying that if she was so careful as to select a well in a compound that was not frequented by anybody for destroying her child, it is hardly likely that she would go about publishing the fact that she had killed her child in this manner subsequently. We are in agreement with the view expressed in the judgment of the trial court that the evidence adduced at the trial did not bring the guilt home to the accused.

3. What the leaned judge seems to have done after hearing the prosecution evidence is this. According to the provisions of S.282 of the Travancore Code of Criminal procedure, after the witnesses for the prosecution have all been examined and before the accused is called on for his defence, the court has the power of asking questions to the accused. But the opening words of the section indicate what the object of this provision is. According to the opening words.

"For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the court may question him generally".

Therefore the object is clearly laid down in the section that it should be to enable the accused person to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The object is not to supplement the

evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The object is not to fill in gaps in the story given by the witnesses for the prosecution. The corresponding provision of law in Union of India is to be found in S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the wording of which corresponds to the wording of S.282 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code. In India, the English practice has been followed. Courts have always taken the view that the condition mentioned in the opening words of S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must be strictly observed by courts when questions are put under this section. In other words, the view taken has been that if there are no circumstances established against the accused perso