VELUCHAMI THEVAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an extraordinary case and, though the facts have been established beyond any element of reasonable doubt, we are constrained to comment upon certain of the1 psychological aspects of this case, with regard to the matter of sentences. The appellant, Veluchami Thevar, married a certain Sundaravalli, P. W. 1, in October-November 1962. Ravi (deceased) was a friend of the appellant, and was employed along with him; he was a guest at the wedding. The record does not justify the slightest suspicion" that Ravi (deceased) was really on terms of improper relationship with Sundaravalli, P. W. 1, Learned Counsel acting as amicus curiae has drawn our attention to the fact that Sundaravalli, P. W. 1, had been previously married and divorced. But the appellant was perfectly aware of this, and divorce was sanctioned by the social standards of the community to which these persons belonged.

(2.) VERY unfortunately, the appellant entertained powerful suspicions about the fidelity of his-wife P. W. 1, in relation to Ravi (deceased ). Thereafter, he seems to have behaved to P. W. 1 in a manner that shows that he abandoned all standards of humanity, and even decency, with regard to his wife. On one occasion, P. W. 1 was branded on the right palm with a hot iron by the appellant; on another occasion, she was gagged by the appellant, arid cut on the left cheek. Even under such-circumstances, in response to demands of the appellant about her relationship with others, P. W. 1 maintained that she had no paramour, and that she-was a chaste wife.

(3.) ON the night of 26. 8. 1963, the night ob offence, the appellant behaved to P. W. 1 in a particularly revolting and sadistic manner. At about 11 p. m. he took her to a lonely place in a field, compelled her to stand naked, and then gave her blows with his leather belt in her back. Even-under this most painful and humiliating ordeal P. W. 1 seems to have maintained her verbal, assurances about her chastity. Not content with this, the appellant took P. W. 1 back home, and wanted' her to confess about a paramour on threat of strangulation. Afraid for her life, P. W. 1 made a confession that Ravi (deceased) was her paramour as the appellant had suspected. The case is a very clear instance of psychological truth that a man who entertains unworthy suspicions will find material somehow for proof of his suspicions, though the suspicions themselves might be totally false. The appellant then took out a cloth, gagged the mouth of his wire with it, and cut off some of her hair on the head. He then cut her right ear with his knife, closed her nose with a towel and took a bigger knife and cut her right breast. After this, he changed his clothes and left the house taking the two knives at 2 p. m. . The P. W. 1, released herself and raised an alarm. Her evidence is corroborated by that of a neighbour P. W. 7, a retired police constable, who came in response to her cries. It is also corroborated by the doctor who examined her, and found an abrasion on her right ear, an incised wound just above the right nipple of breast, and two other simple injuries.