The judgment emphasizes the importance of the accused's conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and clarifies the interpretation of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Spencer, Offg.C.J.

1. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to death, by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore for the murder of Karuppana Goundan, a boy of thirteen years, son of a widow, who was the 4fch prosecution witness. There is clear proof in the depositions of this woman and P.W., 6, her co-tenant, that the deceased went on the morning of January 31st to the pen in the field, which was cultivated by them jointly, in order to take food for a dog, who was left on guard at that place. At about noon, P.W. 6 found the boy lying dead in the pen, with a severe wound on his neck, which severed the spine and the vertebral arteries. The evidence to connect the accused with the offence is that he was seen by P.W. 7, going to the pen, where the murder must have been committed and coming away quickly a short time afterwards and going eastward. P.W. 10 also says he saw him going to the spot; but he did not see him on the way back. P.W. 9 saw him at a distance of 2 furlongs from the pen and coming away and running alone the itteri to the east. His evidence to that extent corroborates the evidence of P.W.

7. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of these witnesses, in spite of the fact that P.W. 7 is a man of 70 years of age and unable to see well and that P.Ws. 9 and 10 have cultivated the village munsifs fields. I am not prepared to say that the lower Court was wrong in acting on this evidence, as the learned Sessions Judge was in the best position to form an opinion, as to whether they were speaking the truth and whether P.W. 7s eyesight was sufficiently good to be able to see what he says he saw. The fact that P.Ws. 9 and 10 are tenants under the village munsif of Kulippalayam is not a ground for discrediting them, in the absense of any evidence to show that the village munsif was responsible for getting up a false case against this accused. The village munsif (P.W. 12) denies that he ever asked the accused to sell his land, or that there is any enmity between him and the accused in the matter of wages. Even supposing that there was some truth in the story that he wished to buy the accuseds land and that the accused refused to sell it, it does not follow that a transaction of that sort would engender such ill-will, as would have led to the concoction of a false case of murder. Be this as it may, the strongest reason for thinking that the present case was not concocted against the accused is that the information upon which he was arrested came out very soon after the crime, by an unexpected and accidental means. P.W. 3, the village munsif of Kilankundal, collected kist from the accused at about 2 p. m, on the date of the offence and he found him to be in an agitated state and answering his questions incoherently. When he asked the accused why he bad not brought his receipt book, he blurted out some statement, which led to his being arrested and handed over to the Police. Next morning there is evidence s of this witness and P.W. 8 that the accused pointed to a spot in a prickly-pear 3 bush, where M.O. 1, a bill-hook on which 7 human blood-stains were detected, was discovered. The Sub-Inspector, P.W. 8, says that the accused took him to the spot on the night of the same day-January, i, 31st-but owing to want of light, the bill hook was not found at that time, and during the night the spot was guarded by a t constable and talayaris. The fact that the 3 accused pointed out the place, where the e weapon was found, as being the place at e which it was concealed, and the fact that f shortly after the crime he was in a very agitated state and made a statement which led to his being asked to show the spot where the weapon used in the commission g of the murder was concealed are evidence is of conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence n Act, which render highly probable, the oral evidence in the case and indicate that a the accused was the murderer,

2. In addition to this, there is the evidence of motive. P.W. 4 states t