STATE OF MADRAS Vs. KALAIVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A. No. 514 of 1986 is directed by the State on special leave, while Cri. R.C. No. 394 of 1985 is directed by P.W. 2, wife of the deceased Balendra Thevar and the sister of the deceased Durairaj, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur. Respondents Ito 6 were tried for five charges under Sections 120B (1), 302, 302,114 read with Section 302 and 114 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that between 27.4.1983 and upto the morning 29.4.1983 at Kalanivasal they hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Balendra Thevar (hereinafter referred to D.1) and one Durairaj (hereinafter referred to D.2) and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, in the night of 28.4.1983 the first accused caused the death of 0.1 by cutting him with aruval; the second accused caused the death of 0.2 by cutting him with aruval and accused 3 and 4 abetted accused and 2 to cause the murders Dl D.1 and D.2. To substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 14, filed Ex. P.1 to P.21 and marked M.Os. 1 to 15.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the oral and documentary evidence, which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal and the revision case, may be succinctly stated as follows: Respondents 1 to 6 are the accused in the case. D.1 and D.2 belong to Kalanivasal village. P.W. 2 is the widow of D.1 and the sister of D.2. Accused 1 to 6 are the residents of Kalanivasal village. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. P.W. 1 is the village Administrative Officer of Kalanivasal village. P.W. 3 is a resident of Sozhanarvayal adjacent to Kalanivasal. P. W. 4 belongs to Kalanivasal. P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 also belong to the same village. It is stated that there were previous enmity between D.1 and the families of accused 5 and 6. About 8 years prior to the occurrence accused 5 and 6 spread a rumour in the village that P.W. 2 was immoral and she was having illicit intimacy with one Natesan Chcuiar. Meenakshisundaram Cheltiar, elder brother of the said Natesan Chettiar, convened a panchayat and settled the matter amicably. P.W. 2Ts elder brother, one Subramaniam, married Sakunthala without the consent and knowledge of his parents and he was living with her. Subramaniam deserted her since she was immoral. Some days later the marriage ofthe younger brother of P. W. 2, by name Ramamurthi, was about to be celebrated. At that time, accused 5 and 6 induced the said Sakunthala to go to the local Pillayar temple and weep there spreading her hair and cursing the family of Subramaniam in order to do harm to his family. P.W. 2 Chandra questioned the fifth accused about this. Subsequenlly Sakunthala who became pregnant was admitted in a private hospital at Peravurani where she died. Accused 5 and 6 induced the brother of Sakunthala to prefer a complaint to the police against Subrarnaniam and others for the death of Sakhuntala. Police investigated the matter and found the case to be false.

(3.) One Ramasamy Thevar, uncle of D.1, was living at Ceylon. He owns 10 acres of land at Kalanivasal. The lands were cultivated by one Arunachala Thevar, a relation of the sixth accused by getting power from Ramasami Thevar. Since Arunachala Thevar did not pay: -lease amount regularly, D.1 entrusted the same to P.W. 10 for cultivation and he was cultivating the same paying the lease amount regularly to D.1 on behalf of Ramasami Thevar. Later the son of Ramasami Thevar, by name Balasundaram, wanted to sell the land. Accused 5 and 6 wanted to purchase the land for Rs. 40,000/-. But due to the efforts of P.W. 10, the land was sold for Rs. 35,000/-. Hence, accused 5 and 6 were inimically disposed towards D.1 on this score also. In 1982 the first accused worked under D.1 as a farm servant of Rs. 1.00 per day. Besides that, the first accused was given one mah of land for raising groundnut and taking the yield alone from the said land. When the first accused was working under D.1, he received Rs. 100/- in excess of the salary due from D.1 and in respect of the same, he executed a receipt Ex. P8. D.1 asked the first accused to re-pay the sum of Rs. 100/- to him; but he was evading payment by giving false excuses and he did not re-pay the same. Further, he failed to report for duty for 3 days. The first accusedTs mother went to the house of P.W. 2 and took away the iron box of the first accused. P.W. 2 went to the first accuseds house and questioned his mother about this and asked for repayment of the excess amount from her son. But she refused to do so. P.W. 2 told this to her brother, D.2. Both D.2 and P.W. 2 came to the first accuseds mothers house. Since she was not available, they returned. When the first accusedTs mother spread a rumour that D.2 set fire to her house. On 27.4.1983 at about 11 A.M. the first accused came to the fifth accused and reported about this against D.2 and P.W. 2 and requested the fifth accused to enquire. The fifth accused in turn asked P.W. 4 to enquire about this. Since P.W. 4 refused, the fifth accused said that he would enquire the next day. On 20.4.1983 at 9 A.M., D.1 D.2, P.W. 2 and her son Hangeswaran were taking food in the kollai. Accused 1, 3 and 4 came there. The second accused Murugesan was standing near by. The fourth accused questioned D.land the first accused asked D.2 as to why he came and damaged the door of his house. D.2 replied that he did not commit any mischief to his house. The fourth accused threatened D.land D.2. There was a wordy quarrel between the two parties. Thereupon accused 1 to 4 left the place. At about 6 P.M. on 28.4.1983 P.W. 4 went to the house of the fifth accused and saw accused 1,2,5 and other. The fifth accused told the first accused to do what he asked him to do without fearing for anybody. P.W. 4 asked the fifth accused as to what happened to the panchayal. The fifth accused replied that since D.2 did not turn up, they talked among themselves. Thereupon P. W. 4 returned to his house.