AMRITHALINGA NADAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and four other accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli on various offences on the allegation that they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of Sudalaikannu Nadar (hereinafter referred as the deceased) and in pursuance of this common object, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased by inflicting a blow with a short spear M.O. 1, commonly used for killing rats. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant as well as the four accused, but, on appeal by the State, their acquittal was reversed and the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, while, out of the other four accused, accused No.2 was convicted of the offence under Section 147 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, or in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and accused Nos. 3 to 5 were convicted of the offence under Section 148 and each of them were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.150/- or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six weeks. Since the acquittal of the appellant was reversed and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, he was entitled to prefer an appeal to this Court under Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Englargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and he accordingly preferred the present appeal to this Court.

(2.) The incident out of which the present appeal arises took place on 18th September, 1969 in a village Alagiavilai. There was a festival in this village during a period of two or three days immediately prior to the date of the incident in the temple of Muthumariamman and for celebrating this festival a subscription of Rs.35/- per familyy was collected from the residents of the villages. It appears that PW 3, a younger brother of the deceased, was unable to pay the amount of the subscription due from him and he, therefore, pledged a brass vessel in favour of the organisers of the festival. The festival was celebrated by arranging various performances and amongst those who were called for giving the performances were one piper and one troupe called Villupattu troupe. The festival being over, some of the organisers gathered together under a tamarind tree at about 3.30 p.m. on 18th September, 1969 for the purpose of disbursing monies to the various performing artistes and finalising the accounts. Those present included the appellant and the four accused, one Pauldurai, one Swarnalingam, one Sivalinga Nadar, P.W. 3 and P.W. 8. The piper was paid Rs.5/- more than the stipulated charge while the Villupattu troupe was paid Rs.5/- less than what was agreed with them. P. W. 3 protested against this inequitous differentiation and insisted that Villupattu troupe should be paid the stipulated charge. The second accused at once taunted PW 3 by saying:"You are a man who has no means to pay the subscription. What right have you to enter a protest - This remark angered PW 3 and he beat the second accused. The second accused, Pauldurai and Swarnalingam retaliated by beating PW 3, on which PW 3 raised an alarm. The deceased was at that time taking food in his house which was on the eastern side of the pathway leading to the house of PW 1 and on hearing the alarm of his brother. PW 3, he rushed to his rescue with a knife M. O. 3 in his hand. Pauldurai and Swarnaligam caught hold of the deceased, but the deceased gave knife blows and both Pauldurai and Swarnalingam sustained injuries on their hands. So far there was no dispute between the prosecution and the defence and both parties accepted that this is in fact what happened. But from this point onwards there was divergence between them.

(3.) Now, accused Nos. 2 to 4 are brothers, the appellant, Pauldurai and Swarnalingam are sons of the brothers of accused Nos. 2 to 4, while the 5th accused is the son of the sister of accused Nos. 2 to 4. The prosecution case was that on account of the beating given by PW 3 to the second accused and the injuries inflicted on Pauldurai and Swarnalingam by the deceased, the appellant and the four accused, who were all related to one another as also Pauldurai and Swarnalingam who were obviously angered and excited, chased the deceased and PW 3, who attempted to run away from the scene of the offence on seeing that they were outnumbered by the appellant and the other four accused. The deceased and PW 3 ran in the southern direction along with the pathway leading to the house of PW 1 in their attempt to escape from the wrath of the appellant and the other four accused who were closely following on their heels. The deceased and PW 3 ran past their houses and on hearing noise, PW 4, the wife of the deceased and PW 5 his foster daughter, came out and saw that the deceased and PW 3 were being chased by the appellant and the four other accused and they also ran behind the chasers. The deceased and PW 3 entered into the compound of the house of PW 1 and sought refuge in that house by bolting the room of that house from inside. PW 1 and his wife PW 2 were sitting in the front courtyard at this time and when the appellant and the other four accused came into the compound in pursuit of the deceased and PW 3, PW 1 entreated them to spare the deceased and PW 3. The appellant and the other four accused, however, did not pay any heed to the entreaties of PW 1 and said that the deceased had stabbed Pauldurai and Swarnalingam and that they would not, therefore, leave the house without "finishing him off". The appellant and the other four accused started pelting stones at the thatched roof of the house and the second accused battered the door with a stick in his hand with a view to breaking it open. The door was ultimately forced open as the iron hook MO 2 fixed with the door became loose and came off and on entering into the room, the appellant, who was carrying a short spear MO 1 used for killing rats, inflicted a blow on the left side of the neck of the deceased with the spear MO 1. The deceased immediately fell down and died almost instantaneously, and as soon as he fell down, the appellant and the four other accused ran away with their weapons in the northern direction. This was witnessed by PW 4 and PW 5 who had arrived at the scene of the offence in the meantime.