OUSEPH MATHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATHAI, the appellant before us was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Parur for committing the murder of his elder brother varkki and sentenced to be transported for life. The prosecution alleged that on the evening of 18. 5. 1953, the appellant paid a visit to his elder brother, the deceased and that at about 8. 30 P. M. while Varkki was sleeping in the southern room of his house the appellant, who was seated on the verandah, got into the room and caused 2 stab-wounds to Varkki on the abdominal region and that as a result thereof Varkki died immediately. To prove the commission of the crime by the appellant the prosecution relied upon: I. The direct evidence of the deceased's wife (P. W. 2)and of his 2 daughters (P. Ws. 1 and 3), II. The extra judicial confessions the appellant is alleged to have made to P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 who took him to a nearby police out-post immediately after the commission of the crime and III. A confession which the accused made to P. W. 17, the first Class Magistrate of Moovattupuzha. The prosecution also led evidence to show that the appellant was under a strong belief that Varkki brought mis-fortune after mis-fortune upon the appellant and his family by witchcraft. The appellant and his brother were Pulayas who got themselves converted as Christians. It would appear that the appellant lost 7 children and that on the date of the occurrence his 8th child and his wife were seriously ill. On account of their illness, earlier that day, the appellant had sent them to the wife's elder sister's place. What the prosecution suggested was that on account of his belief that the deceased was responsible for all the ills of the family, the appellant went over to the deceased's house on the day of the occurrence, deliberately inflicted injuries on Varkki with a pen-knife and that as a result of that the latter died.

(2.) IN his statement before the learned Sessions Judge and in the memorandum of appeal preferred before this Court the appellant did not deny that his brother Varkki died as a result of the injuries inflicted by him. His case however was that Varkki had invited him to his place and that after he went there an altercation took place between them as to whether the appellant had told some people that Varkki was practising witchcraft on the appellant's family and that that was responsible for all the calamities that had befallen to him. According to the appellant during that altercation Varkki gave him a kick as a result of which he fell down. Before he could get up Varkki caught hold of the appellant's private parts and pressed hard on his testacles. IN his agony and with a view to get rid of Varkki's hold on the private parts he gave him a stab with a pen-knife. This, in brief, is the defence version of the occurrence.

(3.) THE evidence of P. Ws. 6, 7 and 8 shows that immediately after the occurrence the appellant went to P. W. 6, and told him of what had happened to Varkki. P. W. 7 soon joined them and to him also the appellant admitted that he had stabbed Varkki. THE three together proceeded to the pothanikaud Police Out-post and on the way stepped into the house of P. W. 8 and made him also to accompany them to the out-post. That witness viz. , P. W. 8 gave evidence that the accused admitted to him of having stabbed his elder brother. To none of them had he made any mention about the altercation or the scuffle or made any suggestion that he stabbed his brother in self-defence.