VAIRANA PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us, an elderly man, named, Vairana Pillai, has been convicted by the learned Session Judge, Madurai, of the murder of his wife, Nallammali and also of causing grievous hurt with 'a deadly weapon to his sister-in-law Vallayammal (P. W, 1) during the course of the same transaction. He was sentenced by the learned Judge to imprisonment for life upon the capital charge and to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326, I. P. C the sentences being directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts are very simple, and the background is of some significance, with regard to the particular ilea advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant on his behalf. The evidence abundantly proves that the appellant was not leading a happy married life with Nallammal (deceased), mainly owing to the aggressive and unyielding temperament of the latter, and her unfeeling behaviour towards her husband. We have the evidence of close relatives and neighbors like P. Ws. 1 and 4, who have certainly no reason to distort the facts in favour of the appellant, that the deceased was not giving even a quarter and to the appellant for his expenses, though he was turning over all his earnings to his wife. Actually, one of the witnesses picturesquely states that even if the appellant went on his knees before Nallammal (deceased) and implored her, she was likely to prove obdurate, and would not grant him cash for his expenses. In addition to this there was discord because of the food habits of the pair; the appellant was a non-vegetarian; and the deceased was a woman of pious disposition who observed vegetarian restrictions, and would not prepare non vegetarian food. Above all, the deceased who was In her early forties, was a devotee of Lord Murugai and, in consequence of her vows she persistently denied the appellant his marital rights. There is abundant evidence on this \ point, and of frequent quarrels between the pair on this account.

(3.) WE now come to the events of the actual date of occurrence (30th September 1961) at about 10 a. m. and the facts here are very simple. It appears that Nallammal, deceased, was conversing with P. W. 4, when the appellant called her. As the deceased was then engaged in taking cow dung for domestic work, she said that there was no hurry, and that she would come later after fetching the crowding learned Counsel for the appellant argues, upon the facts of the record, that, shortly after this, not merely should the appellant have gone into his house, but also that the deceased and P. W. 1 should have done so. The record does show that a very brief altercation between the husband and wife might have immediately followed. In any event according to P. W. 1, she heard the cries of the deceased, and ran in and saw the appellant stabbing his wife with a knife, M. 0. 1, on her chest, flanks and other parts of the body. When P. W. 1 attempted to intervene, the : appellant stabbed her on her forehead left arm and back. A little boy Ramaswami (P. W. 2) son of P. W. 1, tried to interfere and protested. The appellant chased this boy, and the evidence is very clear that the boy had to escape an assault with the knife by taking to his heels, A little later P, W. 3, the village munsif, P. W. 9 and the Talayari and others came to the spot, and the appellant was disarmed. After M. 0. 1 was wrested from him, he was tied up. The village Munsif recorded a dying declaration from Nallammal (Ex, P. 11) in which the offence is very clearly described.