Hallifax—This judgment will deal also with the appeal of the co accused Sapku Patil (Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1920). Against Shrawan the case is perfectly clear. It cannot be, nor has it been suggested, that the evidence of the unfortunate child's mother, Musammat Raju (P. W. No. 12) cannot be accepted as entirely true. That with the other evidence proves the following facts beyond all doubt. It was a most unusual thing for Shrawan to return to the house at all on that day. Nevertheless, he did return in the afternoon for no apparent reason and tried to detach the boy from his mother. He again returned towards the evening and made a false statement of the reason. He then hung about the house doing nothing and followed the boy when he left his mother to go round to the front of the house. He was seen there with the child in his arms, within, at the most, half an hour of the time when he was drowned in the pit in the next ''bari,'' and he was the last person to be seen with him. But in place of any explanation as to where or when he parted from him he can only offer a false denial of having been even in the village during that afternoon. The child was too young to go as far as the pit by himself and must have been taken there. The direct way through an opening in the fence did not exist till after his death, as his father, Raghu (P. W. No. 13), explains, and even this was obstructed by thorns about a foot in height, which a child of four could not get over. Even if he had gone there by himself, it is very improbable that he could have got drowned without his cries being heard.

2. Indeed, it is quite probable that the Mukaddam, Sona Patil, did bear and perhaps even see, the drowning, but with characteristic cowardice or more probably because he was mixed up in the plot himself, as the false report he sent to the Police indicates, he refuses to say anything about it. Sapku Patil, who had a very strong motive for desiring the boy's death, had for sometime been trying, directly or indirectly, to induce Shrawan to drown him and Shrawan had shown signs of yielding, All this by itself would perhaps give rise to no more than ft very strong suspicion, not quite amounting to proof, that Shrawan had murdered the child.

3. But we have, in addition, his own detailed confession, and, so far as it concerns himself, there is every reason to believe that it is perfectly true. Shrawan was arrested on the 15th of September at noon. The Sub-Inspector, who was making the investigation, started with him for Bhandara the same evening for the purpose of getting the confession which he had already made, recorded by a Magistrate, arriving there about midday on the 16th. Shrawan was taken that evening to the Magistrate's residence, as the Courts were shut on that day, but the Magistrate very properly refused to record any confession in those circumstances. On the following day he was produced in Court.

4. The Magistrate then told the accused he would have two hours for reflection after which anything he desired to say would be taken down, and took care to ensure that no policeman was within his sight or hearing. At the end of two hours the Magistrate questioned him fully and carefully and he declared that, neither the Police nor anybody else had ill-treated him or held out any threat or promise to him to induce him to make a confession or had told him what he was to say. Even then he was given another hour for reflection after which he was told to say anything he wished to say and then related the whole story almost without any further questions. He certainly takes the greater share of the blame on himself, admitting that the child was decoyed away and killed by him, though he says that it was at the instigation of Sapku Patil, and that Sapku was present at the murder, and not Mangria, as he had said before. The commitment enquiry began on 29th September, 1920 and at the end of it the accused was examined by the Magistrate.

5. It was then, for the f