JUDGMENT Walsh, J. - In this case one Lakhan Chamar has been convicted under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death and has appealed against that conviction. With him was convicted one Mathura Ojha of an offence under S. 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment, and one Narain Koeri of an offence under S. 201, Indian Penal Code, and also sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Two other persons along with these three, namely, Bandhu Chamar and Kolai Chauar have been acquitted. Owing to a somewhat narrow view which the learned Judge has taken of the numerous confessions in this case, these two must consider themselves somewhat fortunate to have escaped. The murder was a most cold-blooded and brutal one of the village patwari and the usual difficulty was experienced in getting direct evidence of guilt in a small village where an unpopular person has been got rid of, and the community probably think that a maximum of one culprit, who will probably be hung, is sufficient to answer the death of one victim. There is no doubt that there was ample motive and that the patwari was living, like the Czar of Russia used to do, on a sort of volcano. His house had been burnt down once, but he had not the courage to take notice of that trifling incident. His head had also been broken by some attack and altogether beseemed to be the general target for every body in the village and there can be no question that he was done to death on this occasion on his return to the village and that his dead body was thrown into a well and that a change of policy was adopted and that the dead body was taken to an adjoining river which was in high flood and, although it was seen once floating, it has since disappeared. There is no doubt that he is dead and the Judge has satisfied himself on that point with an ingenious piece of evidence. The village maps, which this deceased patwari carried with him out of the village, were burnt in the village on the night of his disappearance. There is no doubt that he is dead and the Judge has satisfied himself on that point with an ingenious piece of evidence. The village maps, which this deceased patwari carried with him out of the village, were burnt in the village on the night of his disappearance. So that it is certain that he returned to the village and the maps being on cloth, although they had been charred black by the fire, the ink has come out white, and the division of the village into plots can still be distinctly traced on the charred remains and compared with a genuine map. In such a case as this, where the investigation is generally difficult, the evidence is very strong. Each of the persons mainly implicated, and almost certainly engaged in the murder, has made a sort of confession containing the usual halfhearted but damning admissions, and couched generally in language intended to create an impression that they were merely unwilling spectators. But as a matter of fact, certainly in the case of Mathura, the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that his own confession is enough to hang him and, therefore, is evidence against Lakhan. The learned Judge is not quite right in holding that because a confession is not a complete and detailed confession up to the hilt, it is inadmissible against a co-accused. But the other evidence against Lakhan and Mathura is really very strong. The learned Judge got into a difficulty. The evidence against Mathura is stronger than that against anybody else, and the Judge says two or three times in the course of his judgment that he is satisfied that he really planned the murder. The evidence of motive against Mathura is much stronger than against the other accused. He had just been dispossessed from a valuable and valued office which he had enjoyed for many years and had been dispossessed as the result of the patwari's action, and there was a village rumour that he was engaged in rivalry with the patwari for the illicit affections of some low class villager's wife. The assessors, of whom two were Brahmans, found Mathura not guilty but of course convicted the worthless Chamar. That seems to be considered quite the natural and reasonable consequence of trying a Brahman and a Chamar in the same transaction and the learned Judge describes their conduct as perverse. The assessors, of whom two were Brahmans, found Mathura not guilty but of course convicted the worthless Chamar. That seems to be considered quite the natural and reasonable consequence of trying a Brahman and a Chamar in the same transaction and the learned Judge describes their conduct as perverse. He satisfied himself at the trial that at lease. Mathura was guilty under S. 335, Indian Penal Code, but he was obviously very unhappy about whether he was right or not in acquitting him under s. 302, Indian Penal Code. He actually says in more than one passage of the judgment that he has very little doubt as to the real complicity of Mathura and his own personal view was that he was the person who planned the murder. While sympathising with the learned Judge, after all it is right to point out that until the verdict of a jury or the opinion of the assessors becomes the legal tribunal for questions of fact, the personal view of the learned Judge is the ultimate one, that the benefit of the doubt means a real and reasonable doubt and it is quite clear that the learned Judge had none. It was under these circumstances that the Government Advocate applied to us to adjourn the hearing until an appeal was filed on behalf of Government against the conviction of Mathura under S. 325, Indian Penal Code, instead of 8 302, Indian Penal Code. We adjourned the case for that purpose. Ample notice was given to the district authorities in Gorakhpur, namely, on the 4th January. All that was necessary was for the District Magistrate to give notice to the Superintendent of the Jail in Benares, where Mathura is undergoing his punishment, to produce him here on the 18th. Through some unexplained delay they seem to have been unable to get the prisoner into Allahabad in time for the hearing of the appeal today, although 14 days time was available. We do not think it right to delay the appeal merely because the prisoner is not here, inasmuch as he has been ably represented by Mr. Kamlakanta Verma and was represented at the trial and everything possible was said for him on the questions arising in the judgment under appeal. We do not think it right to delay the appeal merely because the prisoner is not here, inasmuch as he has been ably represented by Mr. Kamlakanta Verma and was represented at the trial and everything possible was said for him on the questions arising in the judgment under appeal. It would be difficult for anybody to improve upon the reasons given by the learned Judge, if they are good ones, for not convicting him under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and, as the man does not know English, we are satisfied that he would have derived no benefit from his presence and certainly would not have assisted us. We have now, therefore, to dispose of the Government appeal and the appeal of Lakhan. Taking the case of Mathura first, it is really an overwhelming case. His confession says that he was asked by Lakhan Chamar to give information when the patwari returned to the village, so that he may be handled for having interfered with the priesthood, that his hands and feet should be broken and that he should be incapacitated from work. He was told that Ram Kishen Koeri, who worked for the patwari, had better be warned to be away that night because the patwari had many enemies. The object was to get rid of Ham Kishen as a witness, but Mathura, according to his own confession, did that part of the business. He then went to sleep and he would have us believe that he was woke up by Lakhan who told him that he was going to beat the patwari. He studiously avoids saying that he was there. But his own halfhearted description indicates that he must have been there. When the Lala began to cry, he says, the village people woke up but none went there. How did he know when he was not there himself? Ram Kishen and Narain ran away to their respective homes. Again how did he know that? Further he says that after the Lala's voice stopped he heard a sound as if somebody had been thrown into a well. How did he know when he was not there himself? Ram Kishen and Narain ran away to their respective homes. Again how did he know that? Further he says that after the Lala's voice stopped he heard a sound as if somebody had been thrown into a well. There is only one inference from this statement and, if one were to take it at its face value, it means that in this village people are thrown into wells as a matter of such common practice that the sound has become familiar to the residents who can always tell from a distance if a body is being thrown into a well, which is of course an absurdity. But he follows this up by saying that he went home and went to sleep. Where was he when he was awake? The inference is obvious, and it is driven home by the next sentence in which he says that next morning he went to the well to see whether the body was afloat. This convicts him of the knowledge over night of the death and strongly corroborates the eye witnesses who say he was there. Lakhan, of course, in his confession assigns the principal part to Mathura. Village witnesses speak about the jealousy between this accused and the deceased man and also about the public removal from the priesthood. The confession of Narain contains evidence that Mathura took him to the well with the object of removing the corpse to the river. He says that the body was taken out of the well by means of a hook and that Narain was called there for that purpose, all of which indicate either that Mathura being the principal culprit was anxious to show the crime in two pieces so that he might have two sets of persons implicated and thereby increase the chances of his escaping altogether, or that he really was the brains behind the gang and that thinking slowly he raised after it was too late, that the story of the patwari falling into the well was too thin and ought to be abandoned in favour of something better. No doubt the evidence of the witness Khedan, as Dr. Katju on behalf of Lakhan, against whom the evidence is not so strong says, is in many respects unsatisfactory. No doubt the evidence of the witness Khedan, as Dr. Katju on behalf of Lakhan, against whom the evidence is not so strong says, is in many respects unsatisfactory. He is to some extent directly implicated both by his own admission and by other evidence in the case and he has not told a story consistent in itself in every particular with the irreconcilable confessions of the other persons. But it is just one of those cases where, although the details of the confession are complicated for reasons which one can well understand, a substantial story told by each accused leaves no doubt as to the guilt of Lakhan and Mathura in the full degree under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and probably of some others as well. Under these circumstances the appeal of Government must be allowed, Mathura must be convicted under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, in lieu of S. 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death according to law, and the appeal of Lakhan must be dismissed and the conviction and sentence carried out according to law.