Mt. Sukni Chamain vs Emperor

This is a reference u/s 374, Criminal P.C., made by the Sessions Judge of the Muzaffarpur division sitting at Motihari for confirmation of a sentence of death passed by him upon Sukni Chamain for the murder of her husband Tapsi Chamar. There is also an appeal preferred by Sukni Chamain; and we have heard the reference and the appeal together. Sukni is a young woman of about 17. Two years ago she was married to Jagan Chamar (P.W. 15), son of Sheoratan Chamar (P.W. 14). But as she used to leave the side of her husband when he fell asleep at night, he divorced her. In July last she was married to Tapsi Chamar of Dhumnagar about two miles from her father's house. About midday, on 28th July, six days after her wedding with Tapsi Chamar, she cried out that her husband had been killed. The cries at once brought on the scene her neighbours Ghunia Chamain and Patia Chamain, P. Ws. 10 and 11, whose houses are within ten cubits of Tapsi's house. These Chamains found Sukni wearing a yellow sari and a red jhula, with blood marks on both of them. Ghunia speaks of seeing blood on Sukni's hands and feet as well. Sukni was not shedding tears. Her husband was lying dead, obviously killed very recently, and in the presence of Ghunia and Patia, Sukni changed into another dirty sari and had a wash. Ghunia and Patia were followed by Patia's nephew and fosterson Mangal Chamar (P.W. 12), and he also saw enough of the change of sari and the wash by Sukni to entitle him to speak to them as he does. These witnesses left the scene just as Kitab Mian (P.W. 8), one of the chaukidars of the village, was coming up with Gulzar Mian (P.W. 9), another Chaukidar. The Chaukidars found that the woman had just had a wash. They also saw the dead body of Tapsi lying in the room; and then Kitab left Gulzar in charge of the scene and fetched Mahangu (P.W. 3), the chaukidar of the beat. Mahangu came up, saw the dead body of Tapsi and then went with Kitab to the thana of Bettiah, four miles away, where he lodged an information which concludes:

It appears that some one has killed him (Tapsi) just now, in consequence of which he has died.

In this information, Ex. 4, it is stated (and the statement is repeated in the evidence given in Court) that Sukni, when questioned, had said that she had gone outside to relieve nature and on coming back had seen that her husband had been killed by somebody, she did not know by whom. It is also stated that Kitab had seen that her feet and hands were wet and that there was some blood on her jhula. The Sub-Inspector arrived on the scene at about 4-30 in the afternoon. The usual inquest was held in the presence of Sastidat Dubey, (P.W. 5), an assessor punch from a neighbouring village, who happened to be passing by and was stopped by the Sub-Inspector and one Ramghulam Mahton. The house was also searched in their presence, and a garasi full of fresh blood was discovered from under a granary in the room in which Tapsi was lying dead in a pool of blood. There was a large number of incised injuries found on Tapsi, and the Sub-Inspector speaks of the recovery of a yellow sari with blood-stains before the discovery of the garasi. The evidence is that this yellow sari was the sari which Sukni had received from Tapsi at the time of the wedding six or seven days previously. The post mortem showed that Tapsi had no less than fifteen incised injuries, three on the face, three on the chest, one on the shoulder and eight on the neck. Three of the injuries on the neck looked like one big wound and were very long and deep, cutting more than one of the cervical vertebrae together with the blood vessels, trachea, oesophagus and larynx. In the opinion of the Assistant Surgeon who made the post mortem, death was due to shook and haemorrhage resulting from the three injuries on the neck. In the room the Sub-Inspector had found blood not only on the floor but also on the wall and the granary up to a height of six feet. On the 30th July Sukni was produced before the Magistrate at Bettiah as a confessing prisoner and was given one day's time for reflection. On the 31st Babu Jamuna Prasad, a Magistrate of the 1st class, recorded her confession after giving her a particular full warning u/s 164, Criminal P.C. In this confession Sukni stated:

I am possessed by two evil spirits. I was married to Tapsi at Dhumanagar six days previous (to the occurrence). Four days ago, one of the two spirits slept with me at noon. My husband Tapsi came with grass and slept in the house by my side. The spirit pressed me (saying) as to why I was making him sleep by my side and that I should kill him (my husband) otherwise he (the spirit) would kill me. Thus I lost my senses and cut my husband Tapsi with a garasi. When I regained my senses, I began to cry. On this people turned up. Ghunia Chamain and Batunbahu (wife of Batun) came. I narrated all the facts to them. Also a, day before the occurrence a spirit had possessed me. I regained my senses by means of exercising. I did not kill my husband while in senses.

The evidence of the witnesses to whom we have referred has been scrutinised before us, but nothing has been shown to us which will throw any doubt on the truth of statements made by them. (The judgment then discussed the evidence and proceeded). We do not think that the confession gives any ground at all for suspecting that the Sub-Inspector had tutored her or brought any pressure to bear upon her or had offered her any inducement. The contents of the confession, the story of being possessed by two evil spirits and so on, can hardly be said to be such as any Sub-Inspector could have suggested. What is more, Patia, who is by no means unfriendly to Sukni, speaks of a strange incident of the previous day when she was cleaning Sukni's hair and Sukni began to shiver and behave strangely and closed her eyes (though she did not faint) and said that she was a netua of Chainpatia and only came to a ghanta or two afterwards, after one Rajkumar Chamar (who was not called as a witness in the case) had sprinkled water on her face. This supports the story of exercising that is mentioned in the confession. But even apart from the confession, we have in the present case the facts that Sukni and Tapsi were alone in the house, that Tapsi is not known to have had any enemy, and that there was a garasi with fresh blood on it which goes some little way to suggest (as the learned Sessions Judge has shown) that the deed was not done by an outsider, the blood on Sukni's clothes, particularly the yellow sari, which (as the Sessions Judge found) looked as if the blood had spurted on it, and lastly the circumstance that though there were so many injuries on the neck, the neck was not cut which suggests, though it does not absolutely prove, that the injuries were inflicted by a weak female. The theory that Tapsi may have been murdered by an unknown person while Sukni was away relieving nature also becomes difficult to believe when we take into account her behaviour after her alleged discovery of the murder: she calls out to neighbours, but none of them finds her weeping though she was a bride of but six days. So far as is known whether to Sukni or to the witnesses in the case, Tapsi had no enemy; and his poverty also helps to make the story of murder by an unknown person extremely improbable. These considerations taken all together point to but one conclusion.

The case was tried with the help of four assessors who were not satisfied that the accused had done the deed, apparently because she was not shown to have had any reason to do it. The absence of a motive is however not a sufficient reason for coming to the conclusion that the witnesses in the case are all telling lies, they also have no reason to do so, or that the confession is false. Agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge we hold that the murder of Tapsi has been brought home to Sukni. The question of sentence seems to have caused some difficulty to the learned Sessions Judge, who says that if and when it is decided to uphold the conviction, the High Court would doubtless consider whether the sentence should be reduced to transportation for life on account of Sukni's youth or on account of her primitive beliefs. As to these beliefs, the learned Sessions Judge was apparently referring to Sukni's story of the two spirits possessing her. Some support is given to that story by the way she behaved in the house of her first husband and the incident of the previous day spoken to by Patia. It ought to be made clear at once that that story is not a story which will save Sukni by making Section 84, I.P.C., applicable.

It is not a case of unsoundness of mind rendering her incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that she was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. On her own showing she knew perfectly well that she was killing her husband; and she was (according to that story) killing him in pursuance of the bidding of the spirit on pain of being killed herself by that spirit. She was perfectly sane at the time of the trial, but the committing Magistrate's suggestion that she should be placed under medical observation at the headquarters of the district seems to have been overlooked, though on the two occasions when the Civil Surgeon of Motihari saw her with special reference to her mental condition, no reason was found to suspect unsoundness of mind, and her behaviour in the District Jail had been quite normal. The unnecessary brutality of the murder, the large number of injuries inflicted not only on the neck, but also on the chest and face, the fact that she herself brought the neighbours on the scene by her cries, and her failure to make even a pretence of grief by shedding tears, are however features which, together with the want of an intelligible motive, and the full confession made by her, seem to bring this case within the class in which it is not usual to pass the capital sentence: see the observations in Queen-Empress v. Lakshman Dagdu (1886) 10 Bom 512. We are inclined to think that, like the last case, the present is a case where future symptoms may, perhaps, throw more light on the mental condition of the accused and possibly justify a reduction of sentence by the Local Government; but that is not a matter with which we are directly concerned at the present moment. While upholding the conviction u/s 302, I.P.C., we therefore decline to confirm the death sentence, and pass instead a sentence of transportation for life upon Mt. Sukni. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Local Government together with the paper book for such action as may be considered proper.