SUBRAMANIA GOUNDAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the Additional Judge of the Court of Sessions of Coimbatore Division there were four accused, of whom the first accused Subramania Goundan has now appealed to this Court against the confirmation by the High Court of Madras of the conviction and sentence by the trial Court, by which, on charges Nos. 1 and 2, he was sentenced to death, and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on charge No. 3. Special leave to appeal was granted by order of this Court, dated the 6th of May, 1957. Along with the appellant were tried three others, of whom the second accused (Marappa Goundan) was his father. The third accused (Karuppa) was the grandson of the second accused's paternal uncle, while the fourth accused (Iyyavu) was an agnate in the fourth degree of the second accused. It is thus seen that all the accused were related to each other.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge framed four charges of which the first was against the appellant, that he on June 6, 1956, at night in the village of Vengakalpalayam, committed the murder of Marappa Goundan by cutting him with an aruval; while the second charge was that at about the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction, he committed the murder of Muthu Goundan by stabbing him with a spear. The third count of the charge was against the first and the second accused that they conjointly committed the offence of attempt to murder by stabbing one Munia Goundan with a spear and knife, and the last count of the charge was against accused Nos. 3 and 4 that they abetted the commission of the offence of attempt of murder of Munia Goundan by being present on the scene. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but convicted and sentenced the appellant before us in the manner stated above.

(3.) The village, where the offences were committed, was faction-ridden in which the appellant, his father and others took one side, whereas the two deceased individuals, along with Munia Goundan and others, formed the leaders of the rival faction. It was also stated that the appellant's father was the leading man of the village, having been assigned that dignity by the consent of the villagers.