RAYAPPA ASARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Salem convicting the appellant Rayappa Asari for the murder of his concubine Karnala alias Venkatammal and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The murder is said to have been committed about 3 a. m. on the night of 30/31-1-1970 at Avuthipalayam by the appellant stabbing her with a bichuva knife on her throat, neck etc. The evidence against the appellant. is purely circumstantial, but: in our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and the only reasonable inference from the evidence is that it was the appellant who committed the murder. In the first place. there is evidence that the appellant and the deceased Kamala lived in the house of P. W. 7 at Kannankurichi. part of Salem. and that they used to quarrel. That was about nine months prior to the occurrence and the period of their stay was for about a year P. W. 7 began his evidence by saying that they were altogether living happily and there used to be only occasional quarrels between them and that he did not know the cause of their quarrel. But in view of his contrary statement to the police in the investigation. he was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and in that crossexamination he admitted that he had made a statement to the police that the appellant. and Kamala used to quarrel because she was not faithful, and that was why they left the house. He further admitted that that statement was true. No doubt he stated in further cross-examination by the Counsel for the accused that he did not know personally about the infidelity of Kamala and the reason for the quarrel. But , personal knowledge is not necessary in such matters. We could infer the real reason for the quarrel from the conduct of the parties.

(2.) SIMILARLY. P. W. 8. a neighbour of P. W, 7. stated in chief examination that the appellant and Kamala lived in the house of P. W. 7 for about a year, that they were living cordially and that he did not know about the behaviour of Kamala. He was also allowed to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and therein he admitted that he had made a statement to the police that the appellant and Kamala used to have frequent quarrels because Kamala was not faithful to the appellant and that he used to pacify them and he further admitted that that statement was true. In further cross-examination by the counsel for the accused he stated that he did not know personally about the quarrel between the appellant and Kamala. In view of that. we will leave the evidence of PW. 8 out of account. But then there is the evidence of PW. 7 which shows that previously the appellant and Kamala used to quarrel because Kamala was not faithful to the appellant.

(3.) THEN there is evidence to show that the appellant and Kamala took up residence in a portion of the house belonging to P. W. 1. the Karnam of Avuthipalayam in Tiruchengode taluk.