VADIVELU THEVAR CHINNIAH SERVAI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals by special leave, which arise out of the same occurrence, are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25th July 1956, of the Madras High Court, confirming the sentence of death passed by the Court of Sessions, East Tanjore Division, at Nagapattinam, under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code, against appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1957, for the murder of Kannuswami, and modifying the order of conviction and sentence under S.302, read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, to one under S. 326, Indian Penal Code, and reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to one for 5 years, in respect of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1957. In the course of this judgment, we shall call the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1957, as the "first appellant", and the appellant in the Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1957, as the "second appellant".

(2.) The occurrence which was the subject, matter of the charges against the two appellants took place at about 11.30 p.m. on 10th November 1955, at Muthupet, in front of the tea stall of Kannuswami, husband of Shrimati Dhanabagyam - Prosecution Witness No. 1 - who will be referred to, in the course of this Judgment, as the 'first witness', and who is the principal witness for the prosecution, because, as will presently appear, the prosecution case and the convictions and sentences of the appellants depend entirely upon her testimony.

(3.) The occurrence took place in the immediate vicinity of a cinema-house in which the second show was in progress at the time of the alleged cold-blooded murder. As there were no customers at that time at the tea shop run by Kannuswami, his wife called him for his dinner to be served to him behind the tea stall, as the husband and wife used to live there. Kannuswami was about to attend to the call for dinner when an old man came into the shop and asked for a cup of tea. When Kannuswami got busy preparing the tea, the two appellants rushed into premises. The old man - the intending customer - naturally ran away, and the two accused dragged Kannuswami out of the shop on to the roadside; and the first appellant gave him several blows on the front part of his body in the region of the chest with an aruval -a cutting instrument about 2 feet long including the handle. Kannuswami fell down on his back and cried out for help. His wife, the only other inmate of the house, tried to come to his rescue by raising and putting his, head into her lap after the two accused had left him. But soon after, perhaps, realising that Kannuswami was not dead as a result of the first blows, as deposed by the wife, both the accused returned. Kannuswami's wife who figures in Court as the sole witness to the killing, placed his head on the ground and went and stood on the steps of the tea stall. The first appellant, this time, made the body of Kannuswami lie with face downwards and gave a number of cuts in the region of the head, the neck and back. These injuries were such as to cause instantaneous death. At the time of the second assault, according to the evidence of the first witness, Shunmuga Thevar - Prosecution Witness No. 3, one of the proprietors of the cinema-house- came and remonstrated with the accused but to no purpose. After inflicting the injuries both the accused ran away. According to the testimony of the first witness, it was the first appellant, the second accused (A-2 in the record), who inflicted cutting injuries with the aruval. The second appellant, the first accused (A-1 in the record), was standing nearby at the time the cutting injuries were inflicted. There were two electric lights burning in the tea shop, a Panchayat Board light burning on the road; as also a light burning on the pathway leading to the cinema house. The wife of the deceased, finding her husband thus murdered, went and told Ganapathi - Prosecution Witness No. 4 who had a tea stall on the other side of the road, and informed him as to what had taken place. He asked her to lodge information of the occurrence at the Police Station. She then went to the Muthupet Police Station, but found it shut. She went to the house of the Sub-Inspector of Police, who took her to the Police Station, and recorded her statement as the first information report (Exhibit P. 1). After recording the first information report, the Sub-inspector came along with the first informant to the scene of occurrence. He held an inquest early in the morning.