IN RE: SINGARAM AND ANR. Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of Sessions Case No. 62 of 1952 on the file of the Court of Session of the West Tanjore division wherein two accused were tried for an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. in that they committed murder by causing the death of one Mouna Swami by cutting him with an aruval on the night of 27 -6 -1952 at Chandrasekarapuram village. The learned Sessions Judge found that those arraigned for this offence were guilty under Section 460, I. P. C. and sentenced each one of them to transportation for life. He also found each one of them guilty under S. 380, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IN the village of Chandrasekarapuram, an ascetic known as Mouna Swami was residing in a matam adjoining a Subraniania temple both of which had adjacent tank and were situated on the eastern extremity of the village. Towards north runs a road from Valangaman to Papanasam and it is also seen from the plan Ex. P -26 that there was a fencing on three sides of the compound wherein the matam and the temple were situated and on the fourth side, viz., the southern side, there was a wall about 5 feet in height. It is not necessary to relate in any detail the habits of this Swami, for it is not disputed that on the night of 27 -6 -1952 this Swami, as usual, after taking his night refreshment which consisted of a glass of milk, Went to sleep in the Matam which was a small building surrounded on three sides by walls with an opening to the east closed by a thatti door. It is further in evidence that when he was last seen alive, i.e., at about 9 p.m. on the night of occurrence, he was wearing kashayam robes and had a gold chain on his neck and some gold rings on his fingers. The next morning at about 6 a.m. he was found murdered in the matam and the Jewels on his person were missing.

(3.) IN the Sessions Court accused 1 completely denied having anything to do with the robbery or with the murder. Accused 2, before the Committing Court admitted having made the confession to the Sub -Magistrate but stated that it was not a voluntary statement but was the result of tutoring by the police. As we have already stated, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 460, I. P. C. and Section 380, I. P. C.