VOKKALIGARA YENGTAPPA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, a youth aged 20, has been found guilty under Section 302, I. P. C., of the murder of his cousin Eranna aged about 12 by putting arsenic poison into some cooked curry with the intention of doing away with Eranna's family, particularly his father P. W. 8. Eranna alone died. P. W. 8 and others, who partook of this curry, after much purging and vomitting recovered. Appellant has been sentenced to transportation for life. Chennamma A. 2, an old woman, the mother of the second wife of the appellant's father Chennappa, was also charged with this murder along with the appellant but acquitted.

(2.) The family back-ground, and the motive alleged, though seemingly involved, is briefly this. Appellant's father Chennappa had two wives. Ho was the son by the first wife, who died. Then Chennappa married the daughter of A. 2. The deceased boy's father Narasagowda. (P. W. 8) Chennappa and Giriappa (P. W. 12) were brothers. Estrangement between P. W. 8 and Chennappa originated some years ago in A. 2 objecting to her son Manjappa marrying Borarnma (P. W. 16) the daughter of P. W, 8. Incensed by Manjappa marrying this girl in defiance of her wishes, A. 2 had nothing further to do with him. Her family owned property and 'panchayatdars' decided that she and Manjappa should enjoy it in separate portions. Manjappa died in 1948 leaving a small daughter Puttamma. Revenue registration in the village was effected of Manjappa's [family property in this child's name with her mother P. W. 16 and her father's mother A. 2 as joint enjoyers. P. W. 16 appealed to the District Commissioner of Coorg, who eliminated A. 2 who then filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Virajpet to assert her claims, This was dismissed shortly before this alleged offence. In this dispute P. W. 8 naturally supported the claim of his grand-daughter, whereas his brother Chennappa supported his mother-in-law. According to the evidence of P. W. 16, A. 1 left his father's house after a quarrel with his step mother but there was a reconciliation. There is some evidence to show that A. 2 at one time thought of arranging a marriage between A. 1 and the child Puttamma, which would consolidate the property in one family again. However, this may be for some time before the offence, A. 1, as is not disputed, was living quite amicably with his father and stepmother.

(3.) The brothers P. W. 8 and Chennappa lived in strictly separate portions of their family house in Kannangaja on very strained terms. It is in evidence that there was a common loft over the whole of the house to which there was only access originally from a ladder in P. W. 8's kitchen. In view of strained feelings, Chennappa provided a separate ladder for his family to reach this common loft by a ladder from one of his rooms. It was, however, possible for any one in Chennappa's house to enter his brother's kitchen through the loft and 'vice versa'. The only occupants of Chennappa's portion of the house were Chennappa himself, his second wife (A. 2's daughter) and his son A. 1. On the date of the poisoning which was 31-7-1949 they had locked up their part of the house and gone some days previously to the house of A. 2 who lived in a separate house of her own in a village Mythadi 3 or 4 miles away to assist her in her cultivation.