PERIASWAMI CHALLAMUTHU THEVAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram Division at Madurai convicting accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 in S. C. No. 118 of 1959 before him Under Section 302 IPC, and sentencing each of the accused to death. Originally, there were two other accused also in the case, and the charges included a charge Under Section 120-B, IPC read with Section 302 IPC against accused 1, 2, 5 and 6, and an alternative charge Under Section 302 IPC read with Section 109 IPC against accused 5 and 6. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 5 and 6, and that matter is not before us.

(2.) THIS prosecution related to the murder of one Dhinakara Thayer at about 5 p. m. on 13-5-1959, in consequence of certain greatly strained feelings and of enmity between the respective parties. The evidence very clearly shows that this enmity had a political complexion, and originated in a local struggle for power between the leaders of the Forward Bloc and the Congress in this locality. During the last two General Elections in the area, as well as bye-election from Mudukulathur constituency, Dhinakara Thayer (deceased) had been tactlessly criticising the activities and personalities of the Forward Bloc leaders, the major leader of that movement in the locality being one Muthuramalinga Thevar. In 1950, the deceased, who was a Congress man and who had suffered for his political amliation, had been given 7 acres of punja and 1 1/2 acres of nanja lands in Muthukulathur area under a Government scheme. This led to very bitter feeling between the deceased and the supporters of the Forward Bloc, and even in 1951 accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 and others are alleged to have destroyed g certain crops on this property, and the deceased filed a complaint in consequence. A month before this occurrence (April 1959), accused 1 to accused 6 and others are alleged to-have cut away ridges in the property, and Dhinakara filed a complaint against the accused and 61i others which was actually pending at the time of this occurrence. In addition to this, there are other strands of enmity also appearing in the evidence. Accused 1 and 2 and accused 3 brother and others-are alleged to have assaulted one Sankaralingam,, Dhinakara's nephew, and a complaint was preferred about this which led to sentences of imprisonment upon certain of the accused in that case. Dhinakara's son, Sankaralingam, had himself Been convicted of a murder in 1958, and he was undergoing a life imprisonment in consequence. Accused 4 and 6 gave evidence in that case, and accused 1 was helping the prqsecution. We would also like to state here, from our scrutiny of the record, that it appears that the deceased, Dhinakara, was himself by no means a particularly blameless or law-abiding person. In addition to the highly objectionable lampooning of political opponents, the suggestion is that he was himself associated with carrying on political vendettas by means of crimes. The evidence leaves us in no doubt that these accused had a very powerful motive of Tenmity to murder the deceased.

(3.) THERE was considerable evidence in the lower court with regard to the alleged criminal conspiracy. It was discussed by the learned Judge, who has rejected the evidence as inconclusive and insufficient to support a finding of guilt upon this charge. It is hence not necessary for us to proceed into the particulars of this aspect. We might here merely note that the suggestion of learned Counsel for the appellants is that others besides these appellants also had motives to commit a rime of this kind against the deceased Dhinakara Thevar. That may very well be so, and the evidence contains indications that the present appellants, if we may so phrase it, do not exhaust the persons with a motive of enmity to do away with the deceased. But the question is not this. The question is whether, assuming that the appellants had such powerful motive, there is clear and credible evidence about the actual occurrence, which will be adequate to prove the guilt of the appellants upon the charge of murder.