The judgment establishes the principles of admissibility of evidence, retracted confessions, and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in murder cases.

Waller, J.

1. The three appellants have been convicted of the murder of one Thillaikannu Pillai. The 1st appellant is the murdered mans son. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are respectively the 1st appellants brother-in-law and father-in-law. Another brother-in-law was charged with them but acquitted. There was, we consider, no ground for differentiating between him and his brother. If the Sessions Judge accepted, as he did, the confessions of the 1st and 3rd appellants and the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11, he should have convicted the 3rd accused as well. The fact that his name did not appear in Ex. E was, comparatively speaking, of very little significance.

2. That there was ample motive for the murder is clear. In the first place, Thillaikannu was keeping a woman called Nagu and spending money on her, to which his son and no doubt his wifes family objected. In the next, Thillaikannus relations with his sons wife (P.W. 2) had given rise to constant quarrels. He had been intimate with her before she was married and the intimacy continued after her marriage. About ten days before the murder, the 1st appellant had caught her going to his fathers room at night and thrashed her, threatening to kill himself or her, unless his father was murdered. Lastly, the father had been talking of settling some of his property on his daughter (P.W. 1) on account of the quarrels between himself and his son. All this has been conclusively established.

3. On the night of 11th January last," Thillaikannu went out to his field with the 1st appellant, after which he disappeared. Eighteen days later his body was dug up, in consequence of information given by the 1st appellant to P.W. 1. She heard of her fathers disappearance and came back to her native village to make enquiries. When she came, the 1st appellant began by telling her that their father had gone to Cuddalore. The next day he confessed to her that he and his father-in-law and brothers-in-law had murdered Thillaikannu and buried the body between two rocks in his field, after which he attempted to commit suicide, but was saved by P.W. 8. The Village Munsif was informed and the 1st appellant took him and pointed out the place where his fathers body had been buried and it was dug up.

4. The main evidence in the case consists of confessions by 1st and 3rd appellants. There can be no doubt that the 1st appellant confessed to his sister that he and the other three had murdered his father, though she made a desperate attempt to save him by alleging that he did not, in his confession, implicate himself. In the end when confronted with Ex. F--a statement made by her to the Village Munsif--she had to admit that he confessed to her that he also had helped in the murder. Strong objection has been taken by the defence to the Sessions Judges procedure in having recalled her, after her deposition had been concluded, in order to put Ex.F to her. There is no force in the objection. Section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, gives a Judge the fullest discretion to recall a witness at any stage of a trial and makes it imperative for him to do so, if he considers further evidence essential to the just decision of the case. Here an essential document had been overlooked by the prosecution and it was the Judges duty to have it admitted in evidence. To argue that he should not have carried out that duty, as the result was fatal to the accused, is to suggest that the words "just decision" mean a decision in favour of the defence.

5. We are satisfied that P.W. I has given a perfectly correct account of what her brother confessed to her. The circumstances all indicate that he must have taken part in the murder himself. He had the strongest of motives for doing so. He was certainly present. He knew where the body had been buried. He first of all lied to his sister about their fathers whereabouts and, after confessing, tried to commit suicide. Before the Committing Magistrate, no doubt, he, while admitting his presence, attr