The Public Prosecutor vs Chirreddi Munayya

This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of one C. Munayya on a charge of having murdered one Seshamma on the 24th

September 1910. The Sessions Judge accepts the prosecution evidence as true, but thinks that it is not in law sufficient to establish the guilt of the

accused. In this we are of opinion that he is in error.

The material facts proved may be stated as follows:

Seshamma was a widow, living with her brother. He was absent from home on the 24th September last. She was last last seen alive in her house

about 1 o''clock on that afternoon. About 3 o''clock the same afternoon the accused and another man were seen by two witnesses to enter the

house, and to leave it again some time later. Sometime before 6 o''clock the same afternoon one Baligadu went to the house and found her lying

dead in the room, her head and face beaten in evidently with a mallet which lay blood-stained by her. He at once gave the alarm, and the two

witnesses who had seen the accused and another enter the house mentioned the fact publicly. Next day her brother, Seshayya, returned on being

informed of the murder and made a complaint to the Police in which he mentions the accused and the other as the murderers, and gives a long list

of jewels which she used to wear, and which had been removed from the corpse. Search was made for the accused by the Village Magistrate and

Police but he was not to be found in his house or in the village. He was eventually, on the 5th October, arrested at night in a tope in another village.

On the next day he made a statement and took the Police, the Village Magistrate and several others to a place about half a mile from the village

and dug up a pot which contained a number of jewels, which agree with the jewels stated in Seshayya''s complaint to have been takes from

Seshamma when she was murdered. The Chemical Examiner has certified that a number of the jewels so given op by the accused bore on them

traces of mammalian blood.

The accused in the Sessions Court denied his guilt but gave no explanation as to how he came by the jewels. From these facts we think it is

reasonable and legitimate to infer that the accused was the murderer of Seshamma and took the jewels from her.

In the case of Queen-Empress v. Sami ILR (1890) M. 426 it was stated that ""in cases in which murder and robbery have been shewn to form

parts of one transaction, it has been held that recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property, while it would be presumptive evidence

against a. prisoner on the charge of robbery, would similarly tee evidence against him on the charge of murder"" and this principle has been

accepted and acted on in several other later cases by this court.

There is no circumstance in the present case to suggest that the accused was only a receiver of the property, while the fact that he was seen to

go into the house of the woman shortly before the time when she was murdered is almost conclusive evidence that he was the murderer and thus

obtained the jewels which he afterwards gave up to the Police.

We find the accused, C. Munayya, guilty of murder u/s 302, I.P.C., but looking to the fact that he was at first acquitted we resolve to impose

the lesser alternative sentence allowed by law. We direct that he be transported for life. u/s 397, Criminal Procedure Code, we direct that the

sentence of transportation take effect immediately.