BALASUBRAMANIAM ALIAS THAMBIRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred by the same person who was the sole accused before the District Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur Division at Nagapattinam in S.C.No.100/87. It is rather unfortunate that the Registry has numbered the appeal C.A.No.573/88 when already the appellant had preferred C.A. No.325/88. It transpires that C.A.No.325/88 was filed as a private appeal by engaging a counsel, and even while the said appeal was pending, a jail appeal had been preferred by the appellant and the same has been referred to a counsel on the Legal Aid Panel and the Registry has numbered this appeal also as C. A.No.573/88 and have posted both the appeals for hearing Mr. R. Nagarajan, represented that he was appearing in C.A.No.325 /88 as well as Legal Aid Counsel in C. A.No.573 /88. We do not think it is necessary to consider both the appeals because it is meaningless. We, therefore, reject the appeal filed second in point of time viz., C. A.No.573 /88 as unnecessary.

(2.) The appellant faced a charge under Sections 376 (2) and 302 I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376 (2) I.P.C. and for life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with a direction that the sentence has to run concurrently. The brief facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows: The accused and his father Raja Gounder owned a casuarina thope near sea side in the village of Vellapallam. About one month prior to the occurrence which event took place on 25-6-1987, there was a complaint against one Subramanian (P.W.15) that he had cut four casuarina poles from the thope belonging to the accused P.W.2 who as a Panchayatdar speaks to the above occurrence. P.W.15 who actually cut the casuarina poles, admits the above occurrence but says that the accused had given a warning that if anybody enters the thope, he would defame them. P.W.16-A Nattanmai, who was also aware of the Panchayat corroborates the above incident and says that the accused went away warning that whoever enters the field, be it a male or a female, would be properly dealt with by the accused. It was decided in the Panchayat that P.W.15 should pay a fine of Rs.50/- because he had admitted the fact of cutting casuarina poles. The accused is said to have refused to accept the fine of Rs.50/- from P.W. 15 and suggested that the same may be paid over to the temple. Instead, he gave out a warning that if anybody enters the thope for the purpose of collecting sticks or cutting casuarina poles, he would be forced to use defamatory language against them.

(3.) P.W.6 a resident of Vellapallam village, was a close associate of P.W.5 and her daughter one Madhavi since deceased. P.W.6 and the deceased used to frequent the thope of the accused for the purpose of collecting sticks to be used as fire twig. About eight days prior to the occurrence the accused had scolded the witness P.W.6 and the deceased for having entered the thope and for having collected sticks.