Emperor vs Jate Uraon

Harries C.J.

This is a reference made by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur u/s 374, Criminal P.C., for confirmation of a death sentence passed upon one Jate Uraon. There is also an appeal by Jate Uraon against his conviction for murder and the sentence of death passed upon him. It will be convenient to dispose of the reference and the appeal in this judgment. Jate Uraon is a man of about 44 years of age and was tried by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur upon a charge of murdering his wife Teju on 5th July 1939. The learned Judicial Commissioner came to the conclusion that the evidence established that Jate Uraon had murdered his wife, and as the learned Judge could find no extenuating circumstances he sentenced Jate Uraon to death.

The case, as presented in the Sessions Court, for'' the prosecution is a somewhat surprising and unusual one. It is said that in the early morning of 5th July 1939 the appellant, Jate Uraon, for no apparent reason, attempted to assault two men named Bhinsaria Uraon and Manrakhan Chik. These men made good their escape, whereupon Jate is said to have attacked Bahura Uraon (P.W. 1). Again the prosecution can offer no explanation or reason for this attack. It is said that after chasing the two men who managed tb escape Jate Uraon went to the house of Bahura Uraon and attacked the latter with an axe injuring him on the thigh. Bahura''s wife came to her husband''s rescue, and there was a scuffle and Jate was disarmed. Shortly afterwards Bahura together with a witness Manga Uraon (P.W. 2), who is Said to have witnessed the assault, went to Sibu, Chaukidar and reported that Jate had caused the injury on Bahura.

A search was made for Jate who was found, and eventually Bahura, Sibu, ohaukidar, Karma Uraon, a brother of Jate, and Sania Uraon, (P.W. 21) proceeded to the thana which was four miles away. On the way it is said that Jate refused to accompany the ohaukidar and the others and went off; but it is surprising that no attempt whatsoever appears to have been made to detain Jate and to bring him to the thana. At 9 A. M. on 5th July, Bahura made a first information report. The contents of this report are important and I think it advisable to set out the report in extenso:

My name is Bahura Uraon. My father''s name is Mangli Uraon. I am resident of Dewaki, thana Ghaghra. Today on Wednesday, date not known, having come to you with Karma Uraon and Sibu chaukidar at 9 o''clock I beg to report that Jate Uraon has gone mad since (last) night. He had pursued the two persons, Bhinsaria Uraon and Manrakhan to assault them, but they fled away. Mt. Tejni, Jate Uraon''s wife, stopped him, and they fled away. Then he caught hold of a balwa and came to me and wanted to assault me also with the balwa. I caught hold of his balwa, and a scuffle took place, and I got slight injury in the right thigh at his hands. I was bringing him to the thana but he ran away while on his way after he had covered half the distance. This is my statement. Investigation may be made.

The suggestion in this report is that immediately after the appellant had chased Bhinsaria Uraon and Manrakhan, he caught hold of an axe and attacked the informant Bahura. Bahura does not suggest that the attack took place in the latter''s house, and there is no reference to Bahura''s wife intervening or to Manga (P.W. 2) arriving at the scene.

What is said is that the wife of the appellant intervened when Bhinsaria and Manrakhan were attacked and'' that immediately afterwards Bahura was attack-ed. After this report had been recorded, the Sub-Inspector Sheonarain Prasad (P.W. 22) set off for the village of Dewaki. On the way he met the appellant Jate, who made a statement to him, and in consequence of which Jate was arrested. Shortly afterwards, some villagers came along and told the Sub-Inspector that Jate had killed his wife. Jate was arrested at 10.5 A. M. and the Sub-Inspector recorded the information concerning the death of Jate''s wife at 10.30 A. M. Jate was produced before a Magistrate on 10th July 1939, as he desired to make a confession. The Magistrate cautioned him and told him that he was not bound to make a statement and that any statement he may make might be used as evidence against him at his trial. He asked him if he desired to make a statement of his own free will, and Jate answered that he was making the statement of his own accord. Jate''s confession to the Magistrate is in these terms:

A few days ago, I went to drink handi at night. When I returned home in the morning, I saw my wife Teju sleeping with Bahura Uraon. They were in compromising position. I was enraged. I took down a balwa which was hanging and I first gave a blow to Bahura in the right leg. He took to his heels, He also snatched my balwa and ran away. Then I picked up a ploughshare and struck my wife twice on the neck. She died on the spot. Had not Bahura fled away, I would have killed him" also. Then I at once went to the thana alone and reported all the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police. This is my statement. Teju was my brother''s wife. I had married her later on, in Sagai form* She is older than I. She had a daughter by me.

In the Court of the committing Magistrate the appellant admitted making this confession and again repeated that he had found his wife sleeping with Bahura and that he had assaulted Bahura and killed his wife in consequence of what he had seen. In the Court of Session the appellant repeated this version and throughout his-statements have been entirely consistent. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Teju met her death by violence. There were very severe injuries on the skull and on the face and the neck and the cause of death, according to the Assistant Surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination, was shook and brain concussion caused by the injuries which he described in his report. The appellant admits that he caused these injuries; but it is contended on his behalf that the case cannot be one of murder because the assault on Teju was committed as the result of grave and sudden provocation.

The prosecution alleged however that this was not a case where there was any provocation either grave or sudden. As I have stated, it was alleged that Jate for no apparent reason, first attacked two men who made good their escape. One of those men Manrakhan Chik (P.W. 10) was called as a witness. According to him, he had come out of his house at sunrise to make water when Jate came up to him with a balwa in his hand and said. "Who are you ? I will cut you." He makes no mention of Bhinsaria, and this latter person was not called as a witness. The first information report suggests that the two men were attacked together, but Manrakhan''s version is that he was alone when he was attacked. Manrakhan stated that Jate did not appear to be drunk and he could not say what was the matter with him. Manrakhan says that some time afterwards there was an outcry from Bahura''s house, and on going there he found that Bahura had a cut on his thigh. As I have stated the prosecution can offer no explanation whatsoever for this attack, on Manrakhan and Bhinsaria if such ever took place.

The evidence is that shortly afterwards Jate went into Bahura''s house and there attacked him. Bahura (P.W. 1) says that he was sleeping in his house with his wife, child and mother. Jate came with an axe and forced the door open shouting "Where are you" Bahura said "What do you want ?"

On hearing Bahura''s voice Jate struck with the axe which caused an injury on Bahura''s thigh. Bahura tried to get away, but Jate followed him into the inner room where they grappled. Bahura''s wife also inter, vened and, Manga rushed from his own house and joined in the souffle. Jate was disarmed and fled from the house. Again no reason whatsoever has been suggested for this attack upon Bahura. Bahura said that he had no feud with Jate nor with his brother Karma and that he used to visit Jate''s house on occasions.

It is to be observed that in the first information report Bahura said that Jate had gone mad since the night previous; but in evidence he said:

I cannot say whether Jate''s mind was really affected at that time. I said in my first information report that he was mad, because he was behaving like a mad man, viz., in trying to assault people.

The evidence of Bahura is supported by the evidence of Manga Uraon (P.W. 2) and Oharia (P.W. 3), Bahura''s wife. In my view it is impossible to accept this version of the attack on Bahura. If the evidence is to be accepted, Jate, for no reason whatsoever, went into a house of a friendly neighbour and attacked him with an axe. That in itself is a difficult story to believe; but it is impossible to believe the present version when it is compared with the version given by Bahura in the first information report.

In the first information report the suggestion is that immediately after the attack on Bhinsaria and Manrakhan, Bahura was attacked. No mention is made in that report of the attack having taken place in Bahura''s place. Further, no mention is made of intervention by Bahura''s wife or by Manga, P.W. No. 2.

Bahura and Manga went to Sibu chauki-dar and they are alleged to have told the latter what had occurred. A search was made for Jate and when he was found the chaukidar and the others accompanied by Jate went towards the thana. According to the prosecution, Mt. Teju was alive at that time, and if that fact was satisfactorily established there could be no question that Jate''s confession is false.

Karma (P.W. 6), a brother of Jate, gave evidence, and he stated that on the early morning of the day of the murder Teju came to his house and told him that Jate had an axe in his hand and was talking angrily. Teju asked him to intervene but he refused to do so owing to fear. About an hour later the witness said that he was informed by Sibu chaukidar that Jate had wounded Bahura with a balwa. He says that he went to see Bahura. and then met Jate in the village. He mentions how they all went to the thana accompanied by Jate, but the latter left them before reaching the thana saying that he would not go with them. This witness said that when they left the village to go to the thana, Teju was still alive because he had seen her in the morning. The witness does not say that he saw Teju immediately before he left for the thana.

Even if this witness''s evidence is accepted in its entirety, it does not establish that Teju was alive when the haukidar and others left for the thana. AIL it would establish is that an hour previously Teju was alive. The learned Advocate-General had asked us to accept this witness''s evidence and to hold that it establishes that Teju was alive when Jate and the chaukidar set off for the thana. I however find it difficult to believe this witness because according to the police diary he made no mention of seeing Teju in the early morning when he was interrogated by the police. In the interests of the accused we have carefully scrutinized the statement which he made.

There is no reference whatsoever in it to having seen Teju on the morning on which she undoubtedly was killed. The learned Advocate-General has very rightly pointed out that Karma is a witness who is apparently not hostile to. his brother Jate. In cross-examination he tried to make out that Jate had been mad previously and that he had killed Teju and struck Bahura because he was mad. The witness admitted in cross-examination that he had not mentioned to anyone that Teju came to him early in the morning; but he said that he told the Daroga about it at the police, station. As I have said it is clear that he did not tell the Sub-Inspector because there is no reference whatsoever to it in his statement. For these reasons I find it impossible to accept Karma''s evidence that Teju. was alive when the party left for the thana.

The learned Advocate-General has also invited us to accept the evidence of Sibu Dusadh (P.W. 5), the village chaukidar. According to him, Bahura told him of the assault and that he searched for Jate. He went to Jate''s house and there found Teju. pounding mahua seeds but Jate was not there. As he was going away from his house, he met Jate on the road and told him to accompany him to the thana. Jate did so, and if this evidence be accepted Teju was alive when Jate and the chaukidar set off for the thana. This is a most important fact; but it ia clear from the police diary that when Sibu was interrogated by the police he made no reference whatsoever to the fact that he had seen Teju alive at her house shortly before he met Jate and persuaded "him to accompany the party to the thana. The learned Advocate. General has pointed out that Sibu does not appear hostile to Jate, but if he had seen Teju alive immediately before Jate left, he would, in my view, have undoubtedly mentioned the fact to the police.

The suggestion now made on behalf of the prosecution is that Teju was alive when Jate and the chaukidar left the village for the thana and that she was murdered later on after Jate had left the chaukidar and returned to his village. In those circum. stances, it is said that whatever happened previously, such could be no justification for killing his wife. Even if he had seen Ms wife in the embraces of Bahura, the killing of his wife some hours afterwards could not have been said to be the result of sudden provocation, though it might be said to be the result of grave provocation. It is therefore very important in this case to ascertain whether there was or was not a lapse of time between the attack on Bahura and the attack on Teju. If Sibu''s evidence be accepted, there was such a lapse of time, but having regard to the fact that he never mentioned having seen Teju alive to the police I cannot accept his .evidence.

The prosecution also called Teju''s son Hari Uraon (P.W. 11). According to him, he returned to the house about kalwa time (which is said to be about 10 A. M.) from the fields and found the door of the house fastened on the inside. He says he heard his mother crying "Come and save me, Jate is killing me." He tried to push open the door, but he failed to do so and then went weeping to the house of his cousin Sukru Uraon and told him that his mother had been killed. Sukru, who is said to be a lame man, declined to go to Teju''s assistance.

When this witness was examined by the police when the investigation commenced, he made an entirely different statement. That statement was to the effect that when he came home he found that his mother had been killed. In short he admitted that he had seen and heard nothing at all, yet in the Court of Session he stated that he had actually heard his mother crying for help. In my view the evidence of Hari cannot possibly be accepted, and the learned Advocate-General has very properly not invited the Court to accept the evidence of this witness. A number of witnesses were called with a view to establishing what Hari did and said after he is supposed to have heard his mother cry for help; but if Hari''s evidence be rejected obviously the evidence of these witnesses must also be rejected. There was also the evidence of a number of witnesses who stated what they had been told by other witnesses. I cannot understand the relevancy of this evidence as most of it is hearsay and not admissible. Even if it was admissible, it establishes little or nothing.

The prosecution also tendered in evidence the confession of the accused, and that is undoubtedly evidence against him. That confession, however, if accepted, establishes not murder but the lesser crime of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is clear that if a person sees his wife in the arms of another and in the anger of the moment kills either his wife or her paramour he is not guilty of murder. The pro, vocation would be both grave and sudden and would, in my view, reduce the crime to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Such is Jate''s version; but it is said that such portion of the confession as suggests grave and sudden provocation is clearly false by reason of the evidence for the prosecution which suggests that Teju was alive after Bahura had been assaulted and was alive when Jate accompanied the chaukidar to the thana. Jate left the chaukidar some time afterwards, and it is said that Teju must have been murdered, when Jate returned to the village. In those circumstances, it is urged that the provocation, even if it existed, could not be described as sudden.

A man who thinks over what he has seen for some hours might still act under grave provocation but such could, not be described as sudden. I have, however, given my reasons for finding it impossible to accept the evidence of the prosecution that Teju was alive when Jate left with the chaukidar for the thana. Kama''s evidence, even if accepted, does not establish it, and I am not satisfied with Sibu''s evidence when I find that he made no mention of this important fact when first seen by the police. The learned Advocate-General has frankly admitted that the case, as presented by the prosecution is difficult to sustain.19. It is a version of a series of attacks for no apparent reason. An attempt was made by some of the witnesses to show that Jate was drunk; but the Sub-Inspector makes it clear that when he arrested him at 10 A. M. he was not under the influence of drink. Sibu makes contradictory statements concerning his condition.

He said:

When I was trying to take him to the Police Station he appeared to be the worse for drink. He was talking correctly, but his eyes were small and blood-shot. I did not notice any smell of drink about him. It was about 7 A. M. when we started for the Police Station with Jate.

If no smell of drink was noticeable, it is fairly clear that early that morning Jate was not so drunk as to attack everybody at eight. Yet that is what is suggested he did. An attempt was also made to show that Jate was mad; but the Sub-Inspector stated that when he arrested him he showed no signs of madness.

Jate was kept under observation for some time in jail, but the medical evidence is to the effect that he was perfectly sane. If Jate was neither mad nor drunk, then his actions, as described by the prosecution, cannot possibly be accepted. Why should a sober and sane man first attack two people and chase them away, then go into the house of a friendly neighbour and attack him and later kill his wife with a ploughshare ? That, however, Is the case which the prosecution in the Sessions Court asked the Court to accept. In my view, the admitted facts of this case establish beyond all doubt that Jate on the morning in question was moved by some substantial motive, and the learned Advocate-General admits that this is probably true. The question is what was the motive which impelled Jate to attack Bahura and;his wife. Jate says that he found them in bed together and I see no reason for rejecting his statement. Jate has been consistent ''throughout.

He has frankly admitted that he attacked Bahura and killed his wife and also stated in his confession that he would ''have killed Bahura if he could only have caught him. There is a ring of truth about his confession, and it appears to me that he must have found his wife in a compromising position to cause him to attack Bahura and when the latter escaped, to kill his wife. The version given by Jate explains what happened subsequently. The case for the prosecution is inexplicable. No man whether he be an aboriginal or not, would career about the village attacking persons unless something had moved him. Of course if he was drunk or mad, he might act in that way, but drunkenness and madness must be eliminated from this case. Jate was clearly enraged at something and acted upon an impulse caused by what he had seen. I am satisfied that Jate''s version of what occurred is the true one and that he acted under grave and sudden provocation.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that as a matter of law a Court is bound either to accept the confession as a whole or to reject it. I am not accepting Jate''s confession as a whole because I am bound to in law. I am accepting it as a whole because I believe it to be substantially true. In my view, a Court is not bound in law to accept a confession as a whole. If the Court is satisfied that part of a confession is true and part is false, it can accept such portion as it finds to be true and reject the false portion. The law upon this subject has been clearly laid down by this Court in the case in Emperor v. Itwa Munda AIR (1938) Pat 258 in which a Full Bench held that if an accused person makes a confession the whole of that confession must be placed before the Court and is receivable in evidence. But there is no rule of law which compels belief in the whole of the statement.

The Court, if it comes to the conclusion that the statement in its essential particulars is true, is entirely entitled to disregard the statements which it may hold in circumstances not to be true. The point of law does not arise in this case, but I merely mention it because I wish to make it clear why I accept Jate''s statement as a whole, that is, that he saw his wife in a compromising position and lost control of himself and first attacked Bahura and then killed his wife. It appears to me that the only consistent version in this case is the version given by Jate throughout, namely in his confession and in both Courts. Accepting that version, I hold that he acted under grave and sudden provocation and that causing Teju''s death was not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The crime however is a serious one, and taking everything into consideration I think sentence of five years'' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The result therefore is that I would discharge this reference, set aside the conviction u/s 302 and the sentence of death and convict the appellant of an offence u/s 304, I.P.C., and sentence him to a term of five years'' rigorous imprisonment.

Varma, J.

I entirely agree.