THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KANDAIYAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused in S.C. No. 82 of 1970 of West Thanjavur Sessions division, in which the four accused, the respondents herein, were charged for the offence of murder punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. on the ground that they, on 10th April, 1970 at about 1 p.m. have murdered one Kaliaperumal in Mandakara St., Ayyampettai. The prosecution examined six Fwitness as eye witnesses to the occurrence. We probed into the matter and scrutinised the evidence and we have reached the conclusion that the decision of the Court of Session is right and that the accused were rightly acquitted.

(2.) THE first and the second accused are brothers, the third accused is the paternal uncle's son of accused 1 and 2 and the fourth accused is their uncle by courtesy. The deceased Kaliaperumal was the Vice -President of Nallicheri panchayat. The case for the prosecution is that about 10 or 11 a.m. on 10tn April, 1970 P.W. 1 Alagarswami, P.W. 2 Vaithiyanathan, P.W. 3 Dakshinamurthi, son of the deceased P.W. 4 Govindaraj and the deceased Kaliaperumal started from Nelicherri by walk through a short cut to the bazaar at Ayyampettai to purchase certain articles, that after passing through the main road, they reached Mandakara Street at about 1 p.m. that when the deceased went to purchase some betel and nuts, the four accused were standing on the eastern side of the street covering their bodies with towels, that the first accused at that time told the other accused " here comes Kalian, I will cut him first. You also cat him continuously and kill him," that so saying the first accused took out an arrival which was kept concealed by him under his towel and cut the right cheek of the deceased again on the right hand and stomach. The second accused similarly took an arrival which he had concealed in his towel and cut the deceased on the left hand. Accused 3 and 4 similarly took out the arrival which they had kept concealed and inflicted injuries on the chest, neck, head etc. of Kaliaperumal. In this manner, and after inflicting about 27 injuries in all indiscriminately on the several parts of the body of the deceased, the accused disappeared from the scene. It is the case of the prosecution that this was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 to 5 and 7.

(3.) THE motive for the occurrence has been rightly rejected as very flimsy and slender: