Govinda Menon, J.-The main, if not the sole, piece of evidence against the appellant is his confession made before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate and marked as Ex. P-3 in the case. If that confession is accepted, as true, then, there can be no doubt that the deceased Govindammal was done to death by the appellant by cutting her throat by a deadly weapon. But the question is whether it is safe to act upon that document alone and find the appellant guilty of the offence.

The appellant is a young man of 18 or 19 years of age and the deceased Govindammal was practically double his age. She was a woman possessed of some property and the appellant was employed by her as a farm-servant to look after the cultivation. During the course of this service, the appellant became intimate with the deceased and stayed in the house of the deceased. Contemporaneously with the appellant’s criminal intimacy the deceased was also carrying on with P. W. 5, a cooly, as spoken to by P.W.4. The appellant’s desire was that P. W. 4, a young daughter of the deceased, was to be married to the appellant and to that the deceased was a consenting party, but no marriage took place. Just about four months prior to the occurrence which took place on 6th August, 1949, the deceased dispensed with the services of the appellant and the appellant had to go away from the deceased’s house. Subsequently as he seems to have demanded his cultivation wages but, for some reason or other, the deceased was putting him away. Therefore, on the 6th of August, 1949, the prosecution case is that when the deceased was returning from the fields after taking food to her other paramour, P.W.5, who had, in the meanwhile, supplanted the appellant not only in the affections of the deceased but also in residing in the house the appellant met her on the way, cut her and killed her.

There is no direct evidence regarding the crime but it is proved that at 7 p.m. on 6th August, 1949, when P.W.5 was returning he saw the dead body of the deceased on the way. He gave information to the Village Magistrate who passed it on to the police who took up the investigation and charge-sheeted the appellant. The appellant was produced before P.W.1, by the Sub-Inspector of Police on nth August, 1949, and was remanded to the Sub-Jail at Pollachi. He was directed to be produced before the Magistrate on 12th August, 1949, when the necessary warnings contemplated under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code and rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice were administered and he was again remanded to the sub-jail. The appellant was given time for reflection, was told that he was not bound to make a confession and that if he made a confession it would be used against him and was also questioned as to whether there was any inducement, threat or promise as a result of which he was making the confession. He was also told that if he made the confession it would not absolve him from the guilt. Thereafter the appellant was produced before the Magistrate in his Court room on 14th August, 1949. The Magistrate says that he warned the appellant on that day also. In his evidence, P.W.1 says that he was satisfied that on 14th August, 1949, the appellant was going to make a voluntary statement. Then he recorded the confession which is marked as Ex. P-3. But we have the record of the previous warning marked as Exs. P-2, P-2(a) and P-2(b). In Ex. P-2(b) which is recorded on 14th August, 1949, the Magistrate states that though he explained to the appellant that the latter is under no obligation to answer any question at all and had warned him that it is not intended to make him an approver and that anything he would say might be used against him still the appellant was prepared to give a statement. Therefore the Magistrate states that he was satisfied that the appellant was prepared to make the statement voluntarily. The necessary warnings were given and the Magistrate therefore proceeded to take the statement on 14th August,