PACHAKUTTY THONDAMPIRIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 280 of 1962, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pudukottai, is the petitioner. He was convicted under Section 215, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in appeal, and the accused has tiled the present revision case.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the accused is briefly this, P. Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers-in-law. P. W. 2 lives in a village called Theethanipatti, P. W. 1 had gone to Theethanipatti in a bullock cart and stayed there for some days. His bulls were stolen on the night of 12-5-1982. On the morning of 13-5-1982, P. W. 1 and his brother-inlaw, P. W. 2 went in search of the missing bulls. On the way they met the accused and informed him about the theft. The accused thereupon assured P. W. 1, that he need not fear and that if Rs. 100 were paid to him, the bulls would be restored. P. Ws. 1 and 2 returned to their house saying that they would consider and let him know later. In the afternoon of 13. 5-1982, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the house of the accused at Ariandi, and gave Rs. 50 to him saying that it was all the money they were able to collect. P. W. 1 promised to pay the balance of Rs. 50 to the accused after the bulls were recovered. The accused then agreed to this course and received Rs. 50 from P. W. 1. Then he directed P. W. 1 to meet him that evening at Sakki-liankottaikadu with the balance of Rs. 50 when he would see that the bulls were restored to him, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went with the money in the evening to the place indicated above, but though they waited till 10 or 11 p. m neither the accused did appear, nor were the bulls restored. The next morning at Malaiyur village, they learnt that the bulls of P. W. 1 were in the police station at Karambakkudi. They went to the police station and found the bulls. P. W. 1 identified the bulls before the Sub-Inspector and told him what had happened. The Sub-Inspector recorded a complaint from him. The version as to how the bulls were traced is this. On 13-5-1962, at about midnight, the Sub-Inspector of police Karambukkudi arrested one. Uthiraju on suspicion on the Karambakkudi-Panukottai road with the bulls in his possession. These were the bulls which were identified by P. W. 1, the next morning at the police station. Uthiraju was convicted of theft subsequently by the Court. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the present accused under Section 215, I. P. C.

(3.) THE accused's plea was that the allegations of P. Ws. 1 and 2 were totally false. P. W. 1 wanted to snatch away the properties of his elder sister and in that dispute the accused had interfered on behalf of the sister, in consequence of which there was enmity between him and P. W. 1. On account of this enmity the present false case had been filed against him. But no witness was examined by the accused to support his plea. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 as to the incidents that happened on 13. 5-1962, and rejected the plea of the accused that a false case was foisted on him. I have also gone through the evidence and I find that this conclusion has to be upheld.