SOUNDARAPANDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the accused in S.C. No. 6 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Session, Madurai Division challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment, convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE crux of the indictment of the prosecution is that, on 15 -9 -1979 at about 1.30 p.m. in the Bazaar Street at Chinnalapatti village, the appellant (accused) caused the death of Kalyani, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, by cutting him with an aruval (bill -hook) M.O. 1 on the upper part of the left shoulder, on the right scapula, on the left side of the neck, on the ankle of the left leg and other parts of the body and thereby made himself liable to be punished under Section 302. I.P.C. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 filed Ext. P -1 to P -18 and marked M.Os. 1 to 12.

(3.) P .W. 8 and one Selvam were under the employment of the accused in that P.W. 8 was a tea master in the tea stall of the accused had taken on hire four tube lights from P.W. 1 but he did not either pay the rental charges or return the tube lights. So P.W. 1 sent his servant Kalyani (the deceased) to collect the necessary rental charges as also to get back the tube lights. The deceased as per the direction of P.W. 1 went to the shop the accused on the morning of 11 -9 -1979, and demanded the charges and the tube lights which were hired. In the shop of the accused, P.W. 8 and one Selvam were present, P.W. 2 had also come to the shop of the accused to take tea. When the deceased demanded the rental charges and the return of the tube lights, a wordy altercation arose between the accused and the deceased during which the accused told the deceased in a very angry tone that the transaction was between himself and P.W. 1, that the deceased had no business to demand anything from him and that if the deceased persisted in his attempts, the accused would go even to the extent of stabbing him. The deceased, unscared of the threat uttered by the accused, persisted in his attempts. Then the accused, on being aggrieved at the persistent conduct of the deceased, threatened the deceased with dire consequences and said that he would finish his chapter by murdering him. However, at the intervention of P.W. 2 no untoward incident had happened and P.W. 2 separated the accused and the deceased. This was witnessed by P.Ws. 6 and 7. Thereafter, the deceased returned and informed P.W. 1 what had happened.