JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by Sheo Dina, Kachhi, who has been sentenced to death u/s 302, I.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Banda, and there is also a reference for confirmation of that sentence. The person alleged to have been murdered is Mt. Bari Bahu, the mother-in-law of the accused. She lived at Ajnar where there is a police station and the accused Sheo Dina lives at Ari, a village two miles from Ajnar, with his wife Mt. Bhaoni, daughter of Mt. Bari Bahu. It is common ground that on the 23rd June 1932, Mt. Bari Bahu and her daughter started to go from Ari to Ajnar. The daughter had become ill and had sent for her mother to take her to her mother's house. It is alleged by Mt. Bhaoni that the accused was unwilling to let her go. It is also common ground that on the night of the 23rd of June at 9 p.m., Mt. Bhaoni and Sheo Dina were taken out of a well which is half way between these two village? and is situated, in the fields of the village of Khoi. They were taken out by the villagers of Khoi. The representation made to the villagers who took them out was that they had accidentally fallen into the well and it was also stated that Mt. Bari Bahu had fallen in and that she had been drowned. Accordingly at 9 p. m., on that night a report was made at the thana by Ganwa chaukidar, who was the chaukidar both of Ajnar and of Mouza Khoi. His report was in accordance with the information which had been given that Mt. Bari Bahu had been accidentally drowned. In the report he did not make any mention of the accused and his wife having been both taken out of the well and the report indicates that only Mt. Bari Bahu fell into the well and was drowned.

2. The order given on this report was that as this was a panchayat village the chaukidar was directed to make a report for the completion of a formal panchayatnama. learned Counsel objected to this procedure as not being in accordance with Section 174(4), Cr.P.C., but we have ascertained that the procedure was in accordance with the rules of 16th December 1925, Rules 34 and 35 of the rules u/s 75 of the United Provinces Village Panchayat Act, Act 6 of 1920. The procedure, therefore, was perfectly correct. The panchayat took place next morning and the dead body of Mt. Bari Bahu was taken out of the well and the panchas found that there were seven injuries inflicted by a hatchet on the head of the corpse and a report was made in the thana at 9 a. m., on the 24th of June to this effect stating further that Sheo Dina accused had murdered Mt. Bari Bahu on account of her loose character. It also appears that an inquest was held by the police after this under the provisions of Section 174(4), Cr.P.C. This is stated in the evidence of Uma Shanker, head constable, who was then second officer, p. 25, line 41. The statement of Mt. Bhaoni was recorded by a magistrate u/s 164, Cr.P.C., on the 26th of June and the statement which she then made was consistently made by her in the Court of the committing Magistrate and in the Sessions Court. She stated that her husband overtook her and her mother and suggested that they should have a drink of water at the well in question. Mt. Bhaoni refused saying she was not thirsty. The accused then said, "Draw water and give me to drink". The accused had a hatchet in his hand and he assaulted Mt. Bari Bahu and inflicted six or seven wounds with hatchet. He then threw the deceased into the well, and pushed Mt. Bhaoni into the well also and said. "You also go and die with our mother." Mt. Bhaoni clung on to the side of the well and her husband got into the well and proceeded to push her down under the water intending to drown her. She said to her husband that there would be no one to look after her small daughter if she had been drowned and her husband then said that he would not kill her if she would swear on the head of her daughter that she would not tell what happened, and say that they had fallen into the well accidentally while drawing water. At this stage