পাতা:শেষ লীলা - প্রিয়নাথ মুখোপাধ্যায়.pdf/৪৬

এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা হয়েছে, কিন্তু বৈধকরণ করা হয়নি।
৪৬
দারােগার দপ্তর, ৭৮ম সংখ্যা।

arose, who had killed her? As the learned Standing Counsel had told the jury, there was one other woman, besides the prisoner, who had _____ of the food with the deceased. This woman said that after the deceased had eaten, she complained of a bad taste and smell, when she was recommended by the prisoner to have a smoke; and her evidence as regards this, was that the prisone bought her a hookah containing some sort of opiam known as bhang, which made the deceased feel wane. For these facts, the prosecution relied on the evience of the woman Preeo, who was first charged as an accomplice, but during the course of the proceedings at the Police Court, the Magistrate tendered her a pardon, when she made the following statement. According to the statement, after the deceased complained of feeling unwell, Preeo herself went to bed. Afterwards she says, she saw the prisoner coming upstairs with the deceased's ornaments. Seeing this she asked her what she had done, and if she had killed the deceased. The prisoner replied that, she had; that she had done for others before, and that if she did not hold her peace, she would do for her also. Of course, it would be a serious question for the jury to decide, if they could place any reliance on the evidence of Preeo. The statement of an approver could not be acted upon unless it was corroborated in every particular. In the interests of public safety it was necessary at times to resort to the evidence of such persons—accomplices in the crime—possibly to the fullest extent. It was of the utmost importance to know, that the ornaments