PERIYASAMI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, January 18, l962, by which the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant Periyasami under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of death imposed on him. The facts of the case are as follows:- Periyasamy was charged with the murder of his wife Kaveri Ammal on the morning of May 11, 1965, at 6 a. m. at a place in Kirambur where they were residing in what is called a shed in the record of the case. Opposite to this shed was another shed in which Periyasamy's brother with his wife Pappayee (page No. W. 1) was residing. Periyasamy and Kaveri Ammal had been married for a period of two years during which time Kaveri Ammal used to go away frequently to her parents' place, and the motive suggested is that it used to enrage the appellant Periyasamy. On the morning of the day of occurrence, Pappayee heard the cry "Ayyo, ayyo", and she states that she saw Periyasamy striking his wife with a koduval. Pappayee raised an alarm. Periyasamy thereupon threw the koduval away and retired to his shed and taking hold of a rope climbed a tree. He tied one end of the rope to a limb of the tree and another round his neck and jumped, but meanwhile the neighbours had assembled there and they caught him and cut him down from the tree and laid him on a cot. Periyasamy did not die though there is evidence to show that he had some bruises round his neck.

(2.) Meanwhile a brother of Periyasamy by name Chinna ran to their father and informed him about the occurrence. The father, without going to verify what had happened, went over to the police station House and lodged a report, saying that his younger son had informed him that Periyasamy had cut down his wife with a koduval and attempted to hang himself and that he was making the report. In the last sentence of this report, it was mentioned that Pappayee had witnessed the occurrence.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses but we are concerned only with one, namely, Pappayee, P. W. I, who is the solitary eye-witness in the case. It appears that Pappayee changed her statement in the Court of Session by leaving out the name of Periyasamy as the assailant of Kaveri Ammal. She was, therefore, declared hostile by the Court and was allowed to be cross-examined under S. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Her previous statement was also brought on the record of the case. This statement of Kaveri Ammal forms the foundation of the case against Periyasamy, corroborated by the other evidence about his conduct and the motive for the commission of the offence.