The dying declarations of the victims, the identification of the accused, and the discovery of the murder weapon were crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Mockett, J.

1. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two women, Annapurna and Savitri. Savitri was his wife, and she was the daughter of Annapurna who had two sons, P.Ws. 15 and 16. The learned trial Judge has described at some length the history of Annapurna, and it is not necessary for us to repeat it. She apparently was at one time the concubine of P.W. 17, and Savitri and P.W. 16 were children of that union. Annapurna left P.W. 17 fourteen years before her death and appears to have become a prostitute, as a result of which habit P.W. 15 and another child were born. P.W. 17 married P.W. 9. The accused who was employed in the Bengal Nagpur Railway Workshop at Vizagapatam, married Savitri, with the approval of P.W. 17 and Annapurna. That was about three years before Savitris death. Annapurna was the tenant of a house at Vizianagaram, at the time of her death, of which P.W. 17 was the owner. There are many allegations against the character of Annapurna in the evidence it being alleged that she was attempting to lead Savitri into a life of prostitution. The learned Judge, as we have indicated, has dealt fully with this-aspect of the case.

2. So far as the facts in this appeal, which are material are concerned, they may be shortly stated. A few weeks before 18th October 1938 Annapurna and P.W. 15 visited the accused at Vizagapatam. Annapurna was receiving treatment for her eyes from the King George Hospital at Vizagapatam. She returned to Vizianagaram taking Savitri with the consent of the accused. On Saturday, 15th October, the accused came to Annapurnas house and according to the evidence asked for Savitri to return with him but was put off on the ground that her clothes were with the washerman, Annapurna saying that she would return on Tuesday the 18th. The accused, it is stated, left for Vizagapatam. He is supported to this extent by D.W. 5, who says that he was there on Monday the 17th. An examination of the plan Ex. M shows that the deceaseds house is next door to P.Ws. 17 and 9, but a little to the north is the house of P.Ws. 11 and 18. It leads to the house in the south of P.W. 19, and further to the south is the house of P.Ws. 7 and 13. At about 1 A.M. both these women were stabbed to death, Savitri dying almost instantaneously, Annapurna surviving until next day. Their wounds, the doctor says, could have been caused with the dagger, M.O. 1.

3. As to the actual event, the evidence is as follows : P.W. 15, who is ten years old, says that Annapurana and Savitri were sleeping on the same cot and he too was sleeping near by. He was awakened by hearing Annapurna cry out "ammo" and he says he saw the accused, his brother-in-law, running away. His mother told him, "Your brother-in-law has stabbed us and run away," to which he replied "I too saw him run away." In answer to a question from P.W. 16, Annapurna said he stabbed her with a dagger. P.W. 17 and other persons came. We disregard as inadmissible evidence of this witness and elsewhere where it appears that Savitri had shown M.O. 1 to Annapurna stating that the accused was threatening to kill her with it. These we do not consider as within Section 32, Evidence Act, as they do not relate to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. P.W. 15 said that there was some moonlight which enabled him to identify the accused. It appears from the calendar that the moon was new then and just rising. It certainly was not "round shaped" as P.W. 15 said in cross-examination. P.W. 15 said that on the Saturday and Sunday before the murder the accused and Savitri were talking together "lovingly." P.W. 16 who was also sleeping near him gives much the same evidence but does not claim to identify the accused. He says there was slight moonlight the moon having arisen. To him Annapurna said that the accused stabbed both her and Savitri and ran away, and P.W. 15, said, "Yes, I too saw him run away." Standing by itself, we should be relu