PALANIAPPAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case (Palaniappa alias Kutti Mudali) was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for the offence of murder of his father-inlaw, one Marutha Mudali convicted upon the charge, and sentenced, for certain reasons furnished by the learned Judge, to undergo the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life. In view of certain special features of the procedure adopted at the trial, we have actually heard the appellant, who was brought before us, and also heard Sri G. Gopalaswami (amicus curiae) for him. We might immediately state that, in the light of the order that we propose to make we are not proceeding into the merits of the case against the accused.

(2.) What actually transpired at the trial is fully set forth in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, at the committal enquiry, the accused fully cross-examined the witnesses for prosecution. Not merely this, when he was examined by the committing magistrate under the law. he furnished clear and intelligible replies to the questions. Put to him upon the several aspects of the testimony against him. At the sessions trial, in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Rule 166 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, a learned counsel was appointed to take instructions from the appellant, and to defend him. The learned Sessions Judge states that this was a senior criminal lawyer. But, when P. W. 1 was in the box, and immediately after the examination-in-chief of this witness, the accused wanted to cross-examine the witness himself, and, in effect, repudiated the right of the learned coun-sel appointed by the State to conduct the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. The accused was then told by Court that the lawyer had been engaged at State cost, and that he (the accused) could instruct the counsel on points necessary for the defence. We are thoroughly satisfied, both from the record and from our personal examination of the accused, that, though the accused permitted the trial to go on, he was not actually satisfied, and his grievance continued. Again, when P. W. 2 had given his evidence, in chief, the accused protested that his counsel ought not to cross-examine him, and that he (the accused) should be permitted to cross-examine the witness. He was not granted his request, and the trial proceeded accordingly. At subsequent stages of the trial, we find from the record that learned counsel alone cross-examined the witnesses, and that the accused did not further intervene.

(3.) Finally, when the accused was questioned by the learned Judge under Section 342 Crl. p. C. in. response to all the questions of Court, he had only this uniform reply to make or to reiterate, namely, that he wanted to cross-examine the several witnesses whose evidence was put to the accused by the learned Judge. Finally, the accused replied, in response to a general question by the learned Judge: "I want to cross-examine all witnesses. I have nothing to say." When he was asked whether he was aware that a counsel had been appointed at State cost to defend him, he answered that he-did not know this, and that, actually, his counsel never consulted him, nor did he take any instructions from him. The learned Sessions Judge has appended a note to this record to the effect that the learned counsel informed the Court that he did take instructions from the accused on points material to the case.