The Empress vs Indra Chunder Pal

This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad under sec. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as he differed from the verdict of acquittal given by the jury in the trial of a case of murder. It is said that the accused murdered his own wife. There is no doubt in our minds that her body was found in the Khirki tank of Krishna Chunder Pal, the father of the accused. There is evidence that the accused was seen in the morning after one-half danda or so in the bari; between 11/2 danda and about two dandas or so after sunrise. The father hearing a scream at the ghat which is adjacent to the bari, went there and found his son Boloram standing at the ghat and the body of his murdered daughter-in-law, the wife of the accused, lying in the tank. Some vessels which she had apparently taken there to cleanse were found in a foot or a foot and a half of water. All the sons of the family, except Indra Chunder Pal, the accused, were found in the ban. Indra was seen leaving the bari somewhere before two dandas, and he was subsequently arrested in a mango-tope lying to the south of the family house by the chowkidar Prem Lal Hazra and taken to the ban. When arrested, it is said that he made a statement to the chowkidar admitting having killed the young woman. This is spoken to by the chowkidar himself and the witness Debendra Mondal. The Police are said not to have been present at the time this statement is said to have been made, The Judge himself thinks that Debendra Mondol is not a satisfactory witness, but he believes thoroughly in the chowkidar''s honesty.

In the case of Queen-Empress v. Bepin Behari De 2 C. W. N. 71, it was decided by a Division Bench of this Court, that a chowkidar was not a police-officer within the meaning of secs. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and that a confession, made by an accused while in his custody, is evidence. We are not prepared to acquiesce in that decision which is solely based on the definition of chowkidar under Act VI (B.C.) of 1870. No reference in that case was made to Act I of 1892 which has amended the Act of 1870 in regard to the duties of a chowkidar, nor to Regulation XX of 1817 where he is, so far as we can see, described as a police-officer. He is certainly not a policeman in the sense of Act V of 1861. At the same time the question is not of much importance in this case, for after the view taken of the evidence of one of the witnesses to the confession we do not think it would be safe to act upon it.

The Daroga came about 11 or 12 o''clock and commenced his enquiry, and on the same night he forwarded the accused to the Magistrate. The accused did not arrive there till late at night, and he gave a detailed account of how he had murdered the girl, after he had been warned that the Deputy Magistrate was taking down his statement, and he concluded by saying that he did not speak any untruth, nor did he say anything through fear or through the tutoring of anybody. Two days afterwards he stated that he had been beaten, that he made the statement in fear of being beaten, and that the constable and Daroga threatened to beat and kill him unless he made the confession. The evidence on the record shows clearly that he was not tutored nor beaten nor threatened. He was not taken out of his own father''s house until he was sent to the Police Court. On the whole, we have no doubt whatever that the accused has committed the offence of murder under sec. 302, I.P.C., by killing his wife, Nandarani, but looking at the very grave provocation which he had received and his youth, although we convict him of murder, we direct that he be transported for life.