JUDGMENTBY: LORD ATKIN

This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Patna, who affirmed the decision of the sessions judge at Berhampur who had convicted the appellant of the murder of one Kurree Nukaraju and sentenced him to death The accused, his wifes brother, and his clerk living at his house were charged with the murder before the subdivisional magistrate, Chatrapur, in May and June, 1937. After hearing the evidence, the examining magistrate discharged all the accused, holding that there was no sufficient evidence to to support the charge. Thereupon the sessions judge at Berhampur, exercising his powers under the code of Criminal Procedure, called upon the accused to show cause why they should not be committed for trial, and in July, 1937, ordered the present accused and his wife to be committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial for offences under the Criminal Code, sects. 120 B. (conspiring to murder), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing evidence of an offence to disappear). At the trial, the sessions judge acquitted the appellants wife of all the charges, but convicted the appellant of murder, and sentenced him to death. The appeal is based upon the admission of certain evidence said to be made inadmissible by provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act, and is further maintained upon the contention that, whether the disputed evidence be admitted or not, and certainly if it ought to have been rejected, there is no evidence sufficient to support this conviction.

On Tuesday, March 23, 1937, at about noon, the body of the deceased man was found in a steel trunk in a third-class compartment at Puri, the terminus of a branch line on the Bengal Nagpur railway, where the trunk had been left unclaimed. The body had been cut into seven portions, and the medical evidence left no doubt that the man had been murdered. A few days elapsed before identification, but eventually the body of the deceased was identified by his widow. He was a man of about 40, and had been married about 22 years. He had been a peon in the service of the Dewan of Pithapur, one of whose daughters was the wife of the accused. It was suggested by the prosecution that before her marriage, and about 19 years before the events in question, the wife of the accused, then a girl of about 13, had had an intrigue with the deceased. Four letters were produced by the deceaseds widow purporting to be signed by the girl, bearing date 1918, supporting this suggestion. The judge was not satisfied with the evidence of handwriting, there was no other evidence worth considering in support, and this suggested motive must be definitely rejected. The fact, however, remains that the deceased was in possession of these four documents purporting to be signed by the wife of the accused. About 1919, the accused and his wife were married. They went to live at Berhampur, about 250 miles from Pithapur. About 1933, they returned to Pithapur, where they appear to have stayed with her father. They seem at that time to have been in need of money, and during 1936 the accuseds wife borrowed from the deceased man at various times, and in relatively small sums, an amount of Rs. 3,000, at interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum. About 50 letters and notes proving these transactions, signed by the accuseds wife, were found in the deceased mans house at Pithapur after his death. On Saturday, March 20, 1937, the deceased man received a letter the contents of which were not accurately proved, but which, it was reasonably clear, invited him to come that day or next day to Berhampur. It was unsigned. The widow said that on that day her husband showed her a letter and said that he was going to Berhampur, as the appellants wife had written to him and told him to go and receive payment of his due. The evidence was objected to. It was admitted as falling under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 32 (1). The admission of t