LAWS(MAD)-1991-8-100

SELLATHURAI Vs. STATE

Decided On August 06, 1991
Sellathurai Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai South in Sessions Case No. 157 of 1984 dated 22 -7 -1985 convicting and sentencing the appellant (first accused) to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302, I.P.C. The charge against the appellant was that on 18 -4 -1984 at about 5 -30 p.m. at Door No. 4 -A, Subramaniapuram Third Street, Madurai, the appellant committed the murder of Indira on the instigation of the second accused Mariammal who has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charge under S.302 read with S.109, I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is this:

(3.) IT is of little consequence if there were bloodstains in the knife (M.O.1) and the dress of the appellant (M.Os.14 to 16) and if they were found to be as B group blood of human origin. This is a case in which the appellant would admit that he stabbed the deceased with the knife and caused her death and therefore, there might have been bloodstains of one and the same group in all those material objects the contention on behalf of the appellant is that the knife (M.O.1) was not his and that he did not take the same to the house of the deceased with an intention to attack her, but that the weapon was already in the hands of Ibrahim who was found in the company of the deceased in the terrace of the house and that he handed over the weapon to the deceased directing her to attack the appellant that the deceased also did so by causing injuries on his right hand and that the appellant somehow snatched the weapon from the hands of the deceased and retaliated by stabbing her with the same knife. The statement of the appellant under S.313, Cr.P.C. is that he produced the knife (M.O.1) while surrendering at the police station while P.W.17's evidence is to the effect that M.O.1 was recovered by him in pursuance of the arrest of the appellant and the confession statement given by him. Anyway, it is certain that M.O.1 is the weapon with which the appellant attacked the deceased and caused her death.