ARUMUGA NADAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the appellant Arumuga Nadar along with his younger step brother Ratnasami Nadar was tried by Sessions Judge of the Tirunelveli Division for offences under Sections 302/109 and 302, I.P.C. respectively. The prelude to the present occurrence appears to be an incident in April,1969 when at about 1030 P.M. Accused No. 1 Ratnasami Nadar entered the house of P. W. 5 who flashed his torchlight and saw the accused jumping out of the compound. Thereafter P. W. 5 made a complaint to the villagers resulting in the convening of the Panchayat on June 27, 1969, where the first accused was interrogated by the Panchayat and this was strongly resented by the appellant who considered it as a great insult to his respectable family. The deceased Samuel is alleged to have told the appellant that the question of respectability of his family was wholly irrelevant and he should ask his brother accused No. 1 to express regret for his conduct but the accused No. 1 flatly refused to do so and threatened the deceased. On the day of occurrence i.e. June 27, 1969 at about 12-45 P.M. the deceased Samuel was standing in front of the shop of P. W. 3 waiting for a jeep to go to Thisaiyanvilai when both the accused suddenly emerged from the north and at that time accused No. 1 was armed with "Vettu Aruval" (spear). The appellant on seeing the deceased Samuel exhorted the first accused to kill the deceased as he has been constantly insulting the family of the appellant. Thereupon the first accused assaulted the deceased with Vettu Aruval and inflicted several injuries on him. The appellant, however, left the place of occurrence and when the witnesses gathered at the post, the first accused also ran away. P. W. 4 at the request of P. W 2 proceeded to Thisayanvilai village to bring a jeep in order to take the deceased to the hospital or to the police station. At about 3-15 P. M. the jeep was brought to the place of occurrence from where the deceased was taken in the jeep to the police station by P.Ws. 1 and 2. They reached the police station at 4.00 P. M. and lodged the F.I.R. with the Sub-Inspector of Police P. W. 15. The deceased Samuel was sent to the Government Hospital in the same jeep where he reached near about 5-15 P.M. The Doctor, however, sent the injured to the Government Hospital at Palayamkottai for better medical treatment where he was admitted at about 6-40 P.M. As the condition of the deceased grew verse, P. W. 14 a Magistrate of the area was sent for and he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Samuel which is Ext. P-5. This dying declaration was recorded between 7-15 and 7-30 P.M. in the presence of the Doctor P. W 8 when the deceased was fully conscious. Even Ext. P-1 the F.I.R. was the statement given by the deceased regarding the circumstances relating to his death.

(2.) The defence pleaded innocence and contended that the accused were falsely implicated due to enmity. The Trial Judge convicted both the accused, namely, the first accused under Section 302, I.P.C. and the appellant under Sec. 302/109, I.P.C. i.e. for committing abetment of the murder of the deceased. The accused filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed and an application for leave to appeal to this Court met a similar fate. The appellant alone then came up to this Court and obtained special leave and hence this appeal before us.

(3.) Both the courts below have concurrently believed the evidence of the eye-witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3 as also the evidence furnished by the two dying declarations Exts. P-1 and P-5.