THAMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the accused Thami is directed against his conviction and sentence under S. 302 IPC. passed by the Sessions Judge, palghat Division for causing the death of one Madhavan Nair on 3-9-1964 at about 11 p. m. by stabbing him with a dagger-knife.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Madhavan Nair and Pw. 3 were employed by Pws. 1 & 2 land-owners as night watchmen to guard their arecanuts against thefts for the year 1964. On 3-9-1964 at about 11 p. m. , Pws. 1 and 2 brothers awoke suddenly from their sleep at the cry of "thief! thief! catch him" shouted out by Madhavan Nair. THEy got out with a torch and a bamboo stick (M. O. 9) and followed the fleeing someone and the chasing madhavan Nair. Near the banyan tree standing on the boundary all the four happened to arrive together when the deceased Madhavan Nair caught hold of the accused who inflicted stabs on Madhavan Nair with a dagger-knife. Pw. 1 tried to wrest the knife in vain. Both Pw. 1 and his brother Pw. 2 beat the accused with sticks. Madhavan Nair fell down and the accused went to his father's nearby house. Both Madhavan Nair and Pw. 1 were removed to Ponnani Hospital when the accused's people removed him also to that hospital. Madhavan Nair died on the way to the hospital. THE doctor intimated the police about the arrival of the injured. THE Sub-Inspector Pw. 9 reached the hospital, recorded Pw. 1's statement first and that of the accused afterwards. Both cases were investigated by the Circle Inspector Pw. 10, who referred the accused's case under S. 324 as a non-cognizable offence under S. 334 IPC. and filed the charge in the murder case.

(3.) IF the accused's version is true he is protected by the right of self-defence. Hence the crucial question for determination is the circumstances under which the accused was arrested. This would also lead us to the question whether the arrest of the accused from a place near his house by a private individual was legal.