The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.

Mockett, J.

1. The four appellants and one Killadi Dali Naidu who was accused 5 before the Sessions Court were charged in the case of accused 2, 3 and 4 with the murder of one Sriramulu on 1st November 1939; accused 1 was further charged with abetment of the murder by accused 2, 3 and 4, at the place of the murder, and accused 5 with abetment of accused 2 by waiting near by presumably with the object of co-operating. Accused 1 and 2 were further charged with dishonest misappropriation of property of the deceased. Accused 1 is the wife of the deceased and there can be little doubt that - to put it no higher - the married life of accused 1 and the deceased was not happy. The father of Sriramulu deposes that the deceased and his wife had not slept together after their marriage until actually the night of the occurrence. It is not necessary to investigate the relations between these two further than that. The prosecution relied on the ill-feeling alleged to exist between them as being at least the motive for the murder owing to the part said to have been taken in the murder by accused 1. Accused 3 and 4 are the brothers of accused 1. Accused 2 is a farm servant employed by a person who did not give evidence in this case. The conviction of these persons has rested almost entirely on a statement made by accused 2 to the police which statement the learned Sessions Judge held admissible as coming within the provisions of Section 27, Evidence Act. That statement combined with other evidence in the case satisfied the learned Sessions Judge of the guilt of accused 1 to 4. It is convenient, however to observe here that for reasons which will later appear, if that statement should be inadmissible, there is virtually no evidence whatever against accused 1, 3 and 4. Naturally, the position of accused 2 will be different because apart from the statement, his actions accompanying that statement may be very relevant in considering whether the evidence as a whole is sufficient to establish the case against him.

2. Now the story is easy to relate because it depends on one or two witnesses and one or two facts. The learned Sessions Judge has, set out the history of the case fully. On the night of 1st November 1939 there was a quarrel between accused 1 and the deceased because accused 1 shut the deceaseds room and it is stated that the deceased slapped his wife. On the night when he was last seen, i.e., on the night of 1st November 1939 the deceased was wearing ear-rings M.O. 2 in this case. On that night he went out and apparently went out for the purpose which will later appear of getting leaves for the purpose of treating the mother of accused 8 who suffered from boils. That at least is said to be the reason why he went out although the real reason may never be satisfactorily proved. He went out and never returned. All that is known of his movements appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 in this case. P.W. 7 states that he saw accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the deceased going towards the Golukonda road which is apparently in the north of the plan some time after midnight. He was quite near to them and claims to be able to identify them. Later, this witness communicated this fact to P.Ws. 4 and 5, because it came to his knowledge that the deceased had met a violent death. In fact he was told that accused 1 to 4 had murdered him. P.W. 8 had been to a festival and was returning to his village which is Pappuchettipalem. He says that at a point identified by him on the plan, he sat down for the purpose of easing himself. One Pothirazu was sitting near. This witness (P.W. 8) almost saw four men and a woman passing near-by and one of the men called out "Sriramulu, come quickly." The man replied, "I am coming." Now this witness knows the deceased Sriramulu and he was the man who was there and he asked him where he was going and Sriramulu replied he was going to get Gatcha leaves as a relation of his wanted them. The witness says that he spoke t