JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, under sec. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused, Jasha Bewa or Bibi, has been tried, under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having murdered her husband, Baju Sheikh, by poisoning him with arsenic. The Additional Sessions Judge conducted the trial with the assistance of a jury. The jury have unanimously found the accused not guilty; and the Additional Sessions Judge has differed from the verdict of the jury so completely as to render it, in his opinion, necessary to refer the case to us under sec. 307, C. Cr. P. 2. The facts of the case are simple. The deceased, Baju Sheikh, was the husband of the accused Jasha Bibi. They were married about 21 years ago. After the marriage Jasha Bewa sometimes lived at the house of her father, Nur Mamud Sheikh, and sometimes at the house of her husband. In Magh last the girl went to her father and would not return to her husband, but desired to be divorced from him. About six or seven months after, however, towards the latter end of Sraban, the father of the deceased, Sadhu Kamar, brought back the girl to his house at the request of the girl's father; and the girl began to cook the food of the family as she was the only female in the house. Three or four days after her arrival she mixed arsenic with the denga tarkari cooked by her and served it to her husband when he and his father and younger brother were at their evening meal. The vessel in which the tarkari was served to her husband was different from that in which it was served to his father and his brother. After finishing his meal the deceased was washing his hands when he felt a nausea and began retching and vomiting. He suspected the girl and told the people who came to see him that he had been poisoned by his wife. A neighbour came and gave him some jalpara (i.e., charmed water) to drink and a woman applied a solution of rasasindhu over his abdomen. But these remedies proved ineffectual and the man died at about one danda before sunset. 3. Information was given to the punchayet and the neighbours; and the girl confessed her crime before them. A neighbour came and gave him some jalpara (i.e., charmed water) to drink and a woman applied a solution of rasasindhu over his abdomen. But these remedies proved ineffectual and the man died at about one danda before sunset. 3. Information was given to the punchayet and the neighbours; and the girl confessed her crime before them. Next morning she was sent to the thana of Sherpur and thence to Rai Radha Ballab Bahadur, the Honorary Magistrate of Sherpur, before whom she made another confession. These are, shortly, the facts of the case. Evidence as to these Tacts has been given before the Additional Sessions Judge by many witnesses. There is first the evidence of Khaju Sheikh, the brother of the deceased, who is a boy of 10 or 12 years of age and who is said to have been served with food cooked by the girl when he and his father and the deceased sat down to eat together. Khaju speaks about the cooking of the food and the serving of it by the accused. Then, we have the evidence of Sadhu Kamar, the father of the deceased, who says that his son Khaju went to sleep after taking his meal and so could not see what happened afterwards. This witness also speaks of the vomiting, purging and other incidents before the death of Baju. He says he had gone four times to the house of the father of the accused after Magh last and that his attempts to bring her back to his house were unsuccessful, as both the accused and her father wanted a divorce. There is next the evidence of Jani Kamar, a neighbour and first cousin of the deceased. He speaks of the accused having been brought to the house of her husband towards the latter end of Sraban and of the occurrence taking place three days after her arrival. He also states that at 2 gharis of the night he was called by Baju and that on going to Baju's house he found him vomiting; that Baju complained of cramps in the stomach, nausea, a reeling sensation and restlessness after taking his meal and that he (Baju) suspected his wife of having poisoned him. He also states that at 2 gharis of the night he was called by Baju and that on going to Baju's house he found him vomiting; that Baju complained of cramps in the stomach, nausea, a reeling sensation and restlessness after taking his meal and that he (Baju) suspected his wife of having poisoned him. The next witness, Kadam Sarker, says that he saw Baju on the morning of the day an which he died and again at about sunset when he was dead, and that he also saw the vomited stuff. The last-mentioned witnesses Jani and Kadam as also the witnesses Yasin Fakir, Khosh Mahomed Sarkar Punchayet and Sadir speak of the alleged confession of the accused after the death of Baju. Then, we have some formal witnesses; and, finally, we have the confession made by the accused before the Honorary Magistrate. 4. Now, the statements made by the witnesses named above constitute very strong circumstantial evidence against the accused. In the first place, we have the feeling of the accused towards the deceased. Then, there is the fact that three or four days after being brought back to her husband's house, the occurrence took place and the further fact that the food served to the deceased and his father and brother was admittedly cooked by the accused and that the tarkari served to the deceased was in a different vessel from that served to his father and brother. Then there is the fact that immediately after eating the food the deceased had symptoms of arsenic-poisoning, namely, vomiting, retching and restlessness, followed by purging, &c. We have also the statement of the Chemical Examiner, who says that he discovered arsenic in the viscera of the deceased sent to him by the local authorities. Lastly, there is the confession made to the panchayat and the villagers by the accused herself. 5. The admission of this confession has been objected to on behalf of the accused because it is said that the punchayet was a person in authority and that, according to the evidence of Sadhu Kamar, the punchayet told the accused that in order to save herself she must say what she had done. The other witnesses, however, and the punchayet himself say that the punchayet told the accused nothing of the sort. The other witnesses, however, and the punchayet himself say that the punchayet told the accused nothing of the sort. They have given detailed evidence of the confession and recited the exact words used by the punchayet and accused; and they state that all that the punchayet said to the accused was that she should tell the truth. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in addressing the jury pointed out to them that if they believed the statement of Sadhu Kamar, that the punchayet offered an inducement to the accused to confess, then they should reject her confession, but that, if, on the other hand, they did not think that there had been any inducement used, they should accept the evidence of that confession. In his letter of reference to this Court the Additional Sessions Judge has distinctly said that, in his opinion, the evidence of the witnesses and of the punchayet is to be believed and that he considered that Sadhu was not correct in what he said and therefore the confession is admissible and is proved. We are of the same opinion. We do not think that there is any ground for supposing that any inducement was offered by the punchayet to influence the accused to confess, and from the evidence of this punchayet and of the witnesses who heard what the woman said and who can tell the exact words used by her, it does not appear to us that this confession is inadmissible. 7. The pleader for the accused urges, first, that the punchayet was a person in authority, and, secondly, that he was a police-officer. Now, no doubt, the punchayet was a person in authority. Still, as he did not make use of any inducement to influence the accused to admit her guilt, her confession is admissible. Then, there is no reason to suppose that the punchayet is a police-officer. No ruling to this effect has been cited to us. 8. There is next the confession made on the 17th August 1906 before the Honorary Magistrate. This confession is a detailed one and was made after due warning. Then, there is no reason to suppose that the punchayet is a police-officer. No ruling to this effect has been cited to us. 8. There is next the confession made on the 17th August 1906 before the Honorary Magistrate. This confession is a detailed one and was made after due warning. In it the accused distinctly says that she was unwilling to live with her husband and had asked for a divorce, but that it had not been granted; and so she asked Ali, a neighbour of her father, if he could give her something which, if taken, would kill a man. She goes on to say that he agreed and she paid him 2 annas and that on Friday he gave her a small lump of some substance of a whitish colour. She adds that on that day her father-in-law went there and brought her home. Ali, she says, had told her that the drug should be powdered and mixed with some article of food and that such food, if taken by her husband, would cause him to purge and vomit and then die. She then admits that she powdered the drug and on the night of Monday mixed it with the denga curry which she gave her husband to eat; that he ate it and had purging and vomiting that very night and expired on Tuesday at about a prohur before sunset. And she concludes by saying " do not punish me. It was Ali who told me to kill (the man)." 9. The Honorary Magistrate thinks that this confession was made voluntarily. The learned Sessions Judge, however, excluded it from the evidence and asked the jury to discard it, as there was no evidence to show the identity of the woman who made it. The Honorary Magistrate was called, but apparently all he could say was that the confession had been made by one Jasha Bewa. The learned Sessions Judge, however, excluded it from the evidence and asked the jury to discard it, as there was no evidence to show the identity of the woman who made it. The Honorary Magistrate was called, but apparently all he could say was that the confession had been made by one Jasha Bewa. In these circumstances, we called for additional evidence on the point, We did not think that there was much doubt that the statement had been made by the accused Jasha Bewa, because it was headed " translation of the statement of the accused Jasha Bewa before R. B. Chowduhry, Rai Bahadur, Honorary Magistrate " and the accused says in it that her father's name is Nur Mamud Sheikh and that she resides at Mouzah Sabir Char, Thana Sherpur, Zillah Mymensingh, whereas before the Committing Magistrate she admits that her father's name is Nur Mamud Sheikh and that she lives at Harindhara, Thana Sherpur, District Mymensingh. Though there did not seem to us to be any reasonable doubt as to the confession having been made by the accused Jasha Bewa; yet in order to render it legally admissible, we called for further evidence. The Honorary Magistrate has now left the place and his evidence cannot be taken. But there is the evidence of the 2 police-officers who took this very woman to the Honorary Magistrate's Court and saw her placed before him. They were turned out of the room before she made her confession, but they say that there was no other woman there and that no other women could have made the statement. They add that after Jasha Bewa had been in the room half an hour they were told to take her away. In these circumstances we have not the slightest doubt that the person who made the confession before the Honorary Magistrate was Jasha Bewa, the accused. There could not be two Jasha Bewas, daughters of the same father and residents in the same place. 10. We have, therfore, admitted this confession and taken it into consideration. We may remark that we have taken the additional evidence above-mentioned under sec. 422, C.Cr. P., which does not require that such evidence should be taken in the presence of jurors or assessors. 11. 10. We have, therfore, admitted this confession and taken it into consideration. We may remark that we have taken the additional evidence above-mentioned under sec. 422, C.Cr. P., which does not require that such evidence should be taken in the presence of jurors or assessors. 11. After taking all the evidence in this case into consideration we have not the slightest doubt that the verdict of the jury is incorrect and that the opinion of the Sessions Judge should prevail. The evidence shows that the accused has certainly killed her husband by poisoning him. The pleader for the accused contends that there is not sufficient evidence to show that she killed him with arsenic and that arsenic poisoning was the cause of his death. We think, however, that that point is immaterial. Jasha Bewa admits that she killed her husband by poison; and the circumstantial evidence of the confessions as well as the Chemical Examiner's report show that she killed him by poison. There is every reason to think that the poison used was arsenic. In the first place, she says in her confession that she got a whitish powder from one Ali, who told her that if she gave it to her husband it would kill him. All the symptoms from which Baju suffered his being taken ill within a very short time of his taking his meal, his purging, retching, vomiting and so forth-are signs of arsenic poisoning. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chemical Examiner's report shows that there was arsenic in the viscera of the deceased. These circumstances point conclusively to the fact that the accused killed her husband by poisoning him with arsenic. 12. It is to be regretted that the Deputy Magistrate who committed the accused did not record the evidence of the Assistant Surgeon, who made the post mortem examination. He should, we think, have done so. However, looking at the evidence as it stands, we think it is unnecessary to take further evidence on this point. There now remains the question of sentence. There is no doubt that the accused has murdered her husband in a deliberate manner. She admits that she administered a whitish powder to him; and she knew very well that it would kill him. There now remains the question of sentence. There is no doubt that the accused has murdered her husband in a deliberate manner. She admits that she administered a whitish powder to him; and she knew very well that it would kill him. She also admits that she obtained the powder from a neighbour named Ali, who, she says, told her that if she gave it to her husband, he would die and that he, Ali, would then marry her after the nika form. In these circumstances the offence committed by the accused cannot be regarded as anything less than murder, and it was, as already pointed out, a very deliberate murder. Had the accused been of more mature age, we should have thought it our duty to pass on her the sentence of death. But, having regard to the fact that the is a mere girl of 16 years of age, we will not sentence her to the extreme penalty of the law but will direct that she be transported for life, and we accordingly do so.