MARUDAI PRISONER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1959 on his file, convictins; the first accused in that case (Marudai) both of murder (Section 302 IPC) and causing disappearance of the evidence of crime (Section 201 I. P. C), and sentencing him to death upon the first charge, and to rigorous imprisonment for two years upon the second. At the outset itself, it is important to note that the prosecution related to the murder of one Sellayee, the wife of this accused I, aged at about 18 when she was killed, and to the disposal of her body. Further, that accused 2 in the case, who was tried upon the charge Under Section 201 IPC alone but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, was the Village Munsif of Irunagalur (Lalgudi Taluk), apparently a man of some influence and some local status. The appeal of the condemned prisoner is also before us.

(2.) THE case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and those pieces of evidence have to be carefully set forth, and considered in their cumulative effect. Another difficulty in this case relates to the very imperfect police investigation at crucial stages, which has led us to consider anxiously the nature of the comments that we feel constrained to maks, in the interests of justice, upon this aspect, particularly as the tine or suggestion is also present that the local influence of accused might not be unconnected with the lethargy of the police. We may add, at this stage itself, that the case, in its original frame as presented by prosecution, also depended in large measure for its strength upon the evidence of Nallu (P. W. 19 ). the approver, whose confessional statement had been judicially recorded (Exhibit P. 25 ). But, unfortunately for the prosecution, P. W. 19 declined to stand by the confession in his testimony at the trial, and had to be treated as a hostile witness by the Public Prosecutor in the Court below. That certainly added to the difficulties of the prosecution, in this already difficult and somewhat complicated case upon the facts. The learned Sessions judge has attempted to deal with the pieces of circumstantial evidence appearing against the present accused its a careful and lucid manner, but, unfortunately, he has not set forth the facts in their details, to a chronological sequence. The result of this is that the exact relationship' between the facts of evidence, as gathered and presented at trial, and the manner in which the Police-investigation was conducted, has not been fully brought to light in the judgment. We think that this is very important. We have no doubt that the most unfortunate apathy displayed by the Police authorities, at critical stages, has not merely affected the entire case even against the present appellant, but also rendered certain facts themselves somewhat doubtful. We hence propose both to set out the facts chronologically, and, subsequently, to analyse them critically, in order to see how far guilt has been brought home to the appellant before us.

(3.) SELLAYEE (deceased) was the eldest daughter of Veeran (P. W. 1) and she was married to the appellant at Perumalmalai in June-July 1958, A. jacket (which, in a torn condition is M. O. 2) was. presented by P. W. 1 to her before her marriage; When she came with her newly-married husband' to the house of P. W. 1, a few days after the marriage, she was also wearing a saree (M. O. 1),. which was said to have been presented to her by accused 2, Later, the deceased and the appellant again carne to the house of P. W. 1 for 18th-of Adl (July-August 1958), when P. W. 1 presented' her with a bead necklace (M. O. 3 ). At this visit, for the first time Sellayee complained that accused IV mother (her mother-in-law) was asking her to have illicit intimacy with the Village Munsif (accused 2), and that accused 2 was also attemptng to seduceher. A week after this, P. W. 1 received a letter from Sellayee to the effect that the appellant and' herself were at Nilgiris, earning their livelihood.-Four months later, which takes us to about November, 195s, the deceased came alone to the house of P. W. 1, and expressed some reluctance to return to Irungalur, repeating the story that accused' 2 was attempting to have illicit intimacy with her. A few days later, the appellant arrived, and the deceased and accused 1 went back to Irungalur, not without some reluctance as far as the girl was concerned. In January, 1959, shortly before Pangal' deceased again returned to the house of P. W. li alone, and explicitly complained on this occasion that her mother-in-law (accused l's mother) was in illicit intimacy with accused 2, and was pressing; the deceased also to consent to such intimacy. She-left for her husband's house, and this was the last time when P. W. 1 saw her alive.