JUDGMENT

1. In this case Gaya Prasad Brahmin, Chadammi Lal Mallah, Raja Ram Brahmin and Nannha Bhat were tried before the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore on a charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the murder of a woman named Musammat Janki Koer and a boy eleven or twelve years of age named Durga. They have been found guilty and sentenced to death. The Sessions Judge has also, u/s 62, Indian Penal Code, passed an order of forfeiture in respect of all the property of the accused Chadammi Lal. The record is before us for confirmation of the sentences of death and the four accused have all appealed. The case has been fully and ably argued on their behalf. The evidence on the record is voluminous and the learned Sessions Judge has written a careful and elaborate judgment. In dealing with the matter, we may consider first of all the antecedent circumstances of the parties concerned and the evidence of motive. Musammat Janki Koer married successively two brothers named Kesho and Manna, who were the sons of one Umrai. This Umrai was the son of one Subba Lal, and the accused Chadammi Lal is a great-grandson of the aforesaid Subba Lal. The evidence on the record shows that Kesho and Manna were co-sharers in a certain landed property and also that, in consequence of certain successful litigation, a sum of Rs. 7,000 payable to Kesho and Manna in equal shares was realized and deposited in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. From the time of Kesho's death there was ill-feeling and litigation between his widow, Musammat Janki Koer, and the other branch of the family, which were represented, in the first instance, by one Lachman, another great-grandson of Subba Lal by a different line. Since the death of this Lachman the accused Chadammi Lal has acted as the head of this branch of the family. The result so far may be summed up as follows: Kesho's share in the zamindari property seemed to have been lost to Musammat Janki Koer altogether. Manna's share was in the possession of Chadammi Lal, although Manna's name continued to be recorded as proprietor. Of the money deposited in Court, however, Musammat Janki Koer succeeded in securing half, Rs. 3,500, as representing the share of her first husband, Kesho. Lachman seems to have made an attempt, several years ago, to secure the other half by getting himself appointed guardian of the person and property of Manna, who was then a little under eighteen years of age. This attempt was defeated by Manna's appearance in Court, but shortly after this, and before he could himself take steps to secure the money, Manna disappeared. The witness Pukhai, who is Musammat Janki Koer's Uncle and whose evidence contains most of the facts regarding the previous history of the family, seems convinced that Manna was in fact murdered by, or at the instigation of, Lachman or Chadammi Lal. At any rate Musammat Janki Koer's attempt to recover the remaining Rs. 3,500 was defeated by an order of the Court that the money would continue in deposit until Manna's death could be proved, or could legally be presumed by reason of his unexplained absence for a period of seven years. This period was drawing to a close at the end of the calendar year 1913. The evidence of Pukhai shows that towards the close of the year advances were made to Musammat Janki Koer on behalf of the accused Chadammi Lal. The accused Gaya Prasad, who is the Patwari of the village of Karhwa in which some of the family property is situated, came forward in the matter apparently as a friend of both parties. We think there is good evidence that this man was trusted by Musammat Janki Koer and had been of service to her in defeating a previous attempt to get Manna's name removed from the village papers. The position, therefore, was that, as soon as Manna's death could legally be presumed, Musammat Janki Koer might be expected to move in the matter of recovering the Rs. 3,500 lying in deposit, in Court, and Chadammi Lal might be expected to move in