Emperor v. Sadhu Churn Dass Accused

The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—

This is a Reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Pabna and Bogra. The accused Sadhu Charan Dass was put on his trial on the charge of having committed murder by causing the death of Dasi Sundari Dasya—his wife. He was also charged with having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and also with having caused grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to the said Dasi Sundari Dasya. The jury by a majority of 3 to 2 found the accused not guilty on all the charges. The learned Sessions Judge being clearly of the opinion that it was necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court has forwarded the record with recommendation that the accused should be convicted under sec. 302, I.P.C

The main facts of the case are as follows:— On the night of the 14th of April last, the accused Sadhu Charan and his wife Dasi Sundari slept together in the norther room of their house. At 6 a.m, in the following morning, their servant Kokan Cliander Das a boy of 12 years old came to open the shop of the accused's sleeping room, but the accused did not allow him to do so. After this, Kokan saw that the accused Sadhu was vomiting and Dasi Sundari asked Kokan to call Sadhu's brother and mother and Kokan went to fetch them. A shout time after Kokan had gone, two sellers of charcoal cakes who were passing by heard cries from the accused's room and saw Dasi Sundari coming out of the shop with a blood-stained dao in her hand and with her throat cut. She went towards the house of Babu Adhur Chunder Das—a pleader. Adhur Chunder Das was coming from his house and met her and she fell on the ground. Adhur Babu secured a dooli and sent her off to the hospital. The medical examination discloses that she had one incised wound about four inches long and one inch and a half deep in front of the neck, the upper portion of the larynx and pharynx being divided. There were also two other slight incised wounds on the front of her left hand. Two constables who happened to be passing by Sadhu's shop saw a collection of people on the road side. They entered the shop where Sadhu was seated and found blood-stains on Sadhu's person and abrasions on his fingers. Sadhu was arrested and taken to the Police station. The Sub-Inspector found the accused slightly dozing and sent him to the hospital for treatment where he was admitted as a suspected case of opium poisoning. The Doctor washed out the stomach and sent the washing to the chemical examiner who detected opium in the washings. At 2-45, p.m, that afternoon, Dasi Sundari made what is described as a dying declaration which was recorded by a Sub-Deputy Magistrate. She was unable to speak, but, in answer to the question put to her, she pointed out the accused as the person who had inflicted the wounds on her. At 3-15 that afternoon, the accused made a confession which was recorded by the same Sub-Deputy Magistrate. In that confession, the accused stated that he had cut the throat of his wife as she was of bad Character. Dasi Sundari died at about 11 p.m, on the following day—the 15th of April.

The case against the accused rests mainly on the statement, of his deceased wife and on his confession and there is also certain circumstantial evidence. On the circumstantial evidence, there can be no doubt that the deceased woman Dasi Sundari was cut in the room where she and her husband—the accused—had slept and that she and the accused were the only persons present a the time. The only question therefore, is whether, as is contended by the learned Pleader on behalf of the accused, the wounds were self-inflicted or whether they were inflicted by the accused. As regards this point, the main evidence, as already stated, consists of the woman's statement and the statement of the accused. Objection has been taken to the admission of both these statements. As regards the statement of the deceased, it is contended that it cannot be regarded as a statement admissible under sec. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act because it is not actually a statement as the woman was unable to speak and could only make signs in answer to the question put to her. This point was considered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Queen-Empress v. Abdullah . The facts of that case, so far as this point is concerned, cannot be distinguished from the facts of the present case. We are in entire agreement with the majority of that Full Bench which held that the questions and the signs taken together might properly be regarded as verbal statements made by a person as to the cause of her death within the meaning of sec. 32 of the Evidence Act and were, therefore, admissible in evidence.

As regards the confession of the accused, we see no reason why it should be rejected in toto because the accused at the time of making it was under the influence of a dose of opium. From the evidence of the Assistant Surgeon and of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate, we are satisfied that the condition of the accused was such that he could understand the questions put to him. Also the confession itself, though not very elaborate, shows that the accused was in full possession of his senses at the time he made it. There is one noticeable point as regards this and that is that, when the statement was read over to him, he made an important correction. In the answer which was recorded by the Magistrate, he corrected the word to making the answer mean that he cut her throat seeing that her character was bad. There seems to be no reason to suspect that there was any undue influence or inducement of any kind that led the accused to make this confession and we can see no reason why he should have stated that he had cut his wife himself unless he had actually done so.

As regards the statement of the deceased, it is not quite clear what was the question put to her as there are slight variations in the different accounts. From the statement recorded at the time, it would appear that three persons including the accused were made to stand in front of the woman and she was asked to point out which of the three persons had wounded her and she pointed to her husband. We think that it is to be regretted that the question was put in a form which suggested that the injury was homicidal. But nevertheless the fact that the injured woman shortly after she had received the injury showed her husband as having caused it is a very important piece of evidence against him. There are other minor points in the case which support the theory that the wound was inflicted by the husband and not by the wife herself. Opinion of the medical officer is that the wound was homicidal and not suicidal. He has given his reasons for his opinion and though it cannot be taken as a conclusive proof, we think his opinion is entitled to some respect. It is true that the wound was inflicted from left to right which would be consistent with a suicidal wound. But this is not the only point that has to be considered in determining the nature of the wound. There is evidence that the accused about a week before the occurrence purchased a dao. To this we attach no importance whatever. A dao is a common domestic implement and there is no reason for thinking that it was bought with the intention of being used in the manner in which it was actually used. The fact that the woman had a dao in her hand at the time she left her house is not inconsistent with the case for the prosecution that the injuries were not self-inflicted. The marks found on the accused's fingers appeared to the Assistant Surgeon to be such as might have been caused by biting by teeth and the marks on the woman's hand would indicate that she tried to seize the weapon at the time she was attacked. If this was so, it is not improbable that she succeeded in wrestling away the dao from her husband's hand and ran away with it in the manner described. On the evidence the whole of which has been read by us, we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a correct view and that the injury was caused to the woman by her husband—the accused. Having regard to the nature of the injury, there can be no other conclusion than that the person who inflicted it intended to cause: death and that the offence committed, is that of murder. The murder was undoubtedly committed as the accused said because he believed his wife to be of bad character. From the relations between the parties on the previous night as described by their servant Kokan, it seems probable that the murder was committed suddenly on a quarrel arising between the husband and the wife after Kokan had left the house. Possibly, the accused suspected that his vomiting was caused by some poison administered by his wife and that led him to attack her. But this is purely, a conjecture. What actually happened, the husband can alone say. But, we think, that, under the circumstances of the case, the lesser punishment provided for such an offence will be sufficient. We, therefore, convict the accused Sadhu Charan Dass under sec. 302, I.P.C of having committed murder by causing the death of his wife and sentence him under that section to transportation for life.

S.C.M