The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of admissible evidence and the prohibition of persistent questioning of accused persons by the police.

Mockett, J.

1. In this case the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Provincial Government has appealed against the acquittal on a charge of murder of one Munigan alias Munisami, who was the second accused in S. C. No. 18 of 1940 tried by the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot Division at Vellore. This accused was charged with another, one Chinnasami alias Chenga Reddi, with the murder on the 9th of February 1940 of a woman, one Thayarammal, near the village of Kainoor. There is no question whatever that Thayarammal was murdered. Her body was found on the morning of the 10th of February, and, according to P. W. 1, the doctor, there were three external injuries, wounds on it, and it is obvious that great violence had been used that could have been caused by M.O. 1, a bill-hook which is so commonly in evidence in these cases. According to the doctor, the death of Thayarammal might have occurred at about 2-30 in the morning on the 10th of February, which was a Saturday. Before the learned Sessions Judge the first and the second accused were acquitted of murder, but the second accused has been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.

2. Thayarammal, the deceased woman, had been kept for sometime by the first accused and the witness Munisami Reddi (P. W. 8). There is said to be a motive at the back of this murder, namely, that the second accused had been on intimate terms with Thayarammals sister Salammal (P. W. 7) and it was suggested in evidence that the deceased was attempting to arrange the marriage of Salammal to the brother of P. W. 14. Indeed the marriage was said to have been fixed for the 11th of February. This action of the deceased is said to have been displeasing to the second accused and to have influenced him in taking the life of Thayarammal. It was alleged at the trial too that the motive which was supposed to have influenced the first accused was that the first accused was endeavouring to persuade the deceased to discard P. W. 8 in his favour and that the deceased was not willing to do so. It is enough to summarise the alleged motive in that way. It rested largely on the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7, and a great deal of it unquestionably was derived from statements said to have been made by the deceased woman. There are a number of statements attributed to the deceased woman which have been admitted in evidence which were wholly inadmissible. We would invite the learned Sessions Judges attention to a recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Narayanaswami v. King Emperor (1939). M.L.J. 756. In this case Lord Atkin explained the provisions of Section 32 as applicable to murder cases and after that authority there should be little reason for the burdening of the record with statements of persons who subsequently died, which are totally inadmissible, as is unhappily frequently the case. The evidence against the second accused is almost entirely derived from the statements made by himself accompanied by the fact, the undoubted fact, that he was on that evening in the company of the deceased woman. It appears that on the night of the 9th, the woman, Thayarammal, who was living in the house of P. W. 4, went to lie down and the next morning she was found to be missing. It was supposed she had gone to the fields to work, but no trace of her could be found and so enquiries were set on foot and, on February the 10th, P.W. 61, seeing a crowd, went to it and there saw the body of the deceased woman. She still had some of her jewellery upon her, but one article of jewellery, a pair of kammals marked M.O. 2 in this case, was missing. The course of events afterwards was as follows : P.W. 4 made a report, which is the first information report in this case and which is marked Ex. D, and it is interesting to note in that report that P.W. 4 supposes that the likely criminals were the first accused and P.W. 8. On the 11th February the first accused w