DESINGH NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Desingh Nadar, a young man of about 23, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram division it Madurai of the murder of one Sivaswami Nadar at the house of the deceased on the night of 10-11-1959 (S. 302, I. P. C), and sentenced to death. The appeal of the condemned prisoner is also before us.

(2.) THE facts in this case are really simple, and the facts and probabilities, as we shall indicate presently, are overwhelming and decisive. The sole difficulty arises from the fact that no intelligible motive for the murderous assault appears in the evidence. It is not the case for prosecution that this was a pre-planned murder, though, at one stage, the police authorities seem to have thought that the appellant deliberately purchased an aruval and came to the house of Sivaswami Nadar (deceased) with some evil intent. Actually, the accused who was related to Sivaswami Nadar, was a comparatively well-to-do person, and was even occasionally helping the deceased by loans etc. He came to the house of Sivaswami Nadar on the night of occurrence at about 7-30 p. m. , carrying a rolled bundle of gunny bags, and a cloth bag. Concerning what happened later that night, we have the testimonies of Gnanaguruvammal (P, W, 1), the eldest daughter of the deceased aged about 15, and Soundarapardian (P. W. 2), her younger brother aged about 10. There was also another daughter of the deceased in the house a girl called Tamilarasi, but apparently she was con-sidered too young to be examined as a witness at the trial.

(3.) GNANAGURUVAMMAL (P. W: 1) has given very clear and specific evidence. Her evidence is further corroborated by her younger brother (P. W. 2) and the testimonies of Nityakalyani Ammal (P. W. 3) and Valavandammal (P. W. 8), her mother-in-law, who were the neighbours awakened by P. W. 1 immediately after the murderous assault. A glance at the plan Ex. P-12 will show that the house of the deceased faces south, and that the room marked No. 1 is the front hall, while the room marked No. 2 is the central hall immediately to the north of it. The evidence of P. W. 1 is to the effect that the accused attempted to take his bed that night in the room marked No. 2, along with P. Ws, 1, 2 and the other girl. The deceased then told the accused that he should not sleep in that place where young girls were sleeping, and made the accused take his bed near the deceased in the front hall. The two halls are separated by a door, partly made of wood and partly of iron bars. That door was not bolted on that particular night,