The admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the interpretation of Jail Rules and Police Standing Orders were central to the judgment.

Burn, J.

1. The appellant and one Venka Narayudu were tried together by the learned Sessions Judge of West Godavari for the murder of a woman named Reddi Venka-yamma late at night on 19th April 1941, or rather on the early morning of the 20th. The case against them was that accused 2 had been carrying on an intrigue with Reddi Venkayamma, who was a married woman, and that early in the morning of 20th April before day light he had decoyed her to the compound of the Local Fund School and there both the accused had killed her. The motive alleged was that of the womans jewels (M.Os. Nos. 1 to 5) which are unusually valuable. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 2, but convicted accused 1 and sentenced him to death. Hence this appeal.

2. There is no dispute about the fact that Venkayamma was murdered by strangulation and there is no dispute about the place or the time of the occurrence. There is no dispute also about the identity of jewels (M.Os. 1 to 5) which were the property of the murdered woman. The evidence against the appellant consists partly of the statements of witnesses who say that they saw him and accused 2 near the scene of offence late on Saturday night or very early on the morning of Sunday, 20th April, partly of evidence that accused 1 on 19th April possessed himself of an instrument suitable for cutting gold jewels, and partly of the evidence of witnesses who say that, very soon after the offence, accused 1 was trying to conceal the jewels of the murdered woman. Besides this, there is evidence that, on 2nd May accused 1 gave information to the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 22) about the murder and about the disposal of the jewels of the murdered woman. The statement in which he gave this information, it is stated, resulted in the discovery of M.Os. Nos. 1 to 5 on the afternoon of 2nd May. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the evidence of P.Ws. 11, 12 and 13, who said that they had seen both the accused near the school compound not very long before the murder must have taken place. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved also the evidence of a goldsmith (P.W. 3) who said that on 19th April, accused 1 borrowed from him a pair of goldsmiths scissors and returned them the next morning. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of Papayyamma (P.W. 2), corroborated by that of P.Ws. 8 and 9, which was to the effect that, on 21st and 22nd April accused 1 was discussing the concealment of the jewels of the deceased. The learned Judge believed the evidence of the husband of the deceased, P.W. 5, his adoptive mother, P.W. 6, father, P.W. 10 and P.W. 7, the sister of the deceased, who said that Venkayamma was always wearing the jewels, M.Os. Nos. 1 to 5 and that she had them on, on Saturday night the 19th April. The learned Sessions Judge accepted also the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 22) corroborated by that of P.Ws. 18, 19 and 20 about the information given by accused 1 which led to the discovery of the jewels M. OS 1 to 5 in a field belonging to a sister of accused 1.

3. Mr Jayarama Ayyar for accused 1 has devoted the greater part of his argument to showing that the information given by accused 1 to the Sub-Inspector and recorded in Ex. F ought not to have been admitted in evidence. The contention is that the evidence about this statement and about the recovery of the jewels is the only important evidence against the appellant. The attack upon Ex. F and the subsequent proceedings to discover the jewels, is based upon the fact that, although accused 1 was arrested on 22nd April, he gave no information to the police about the murder or the jewels until 2nd May and then, he gave this information in very unusual circumstances. The Head Constable (P.W. 17) who was in charge of the sub-jail guard, says that, on the evening of 1st May, accused 1 said that he would like to speak to the Sub-Inspector. This was reported by P.W. 17 to the Sub-Inspector at 6-15 P.M., and at 7 the next morning the S