IN RE: VALLI AMMAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly on a charge of murder.

(2.) THERE were three accused in the lower Court. The first was Valli Ammal, one of the appellants. She was sentenced to death. The other appellant was the third accused in the lower Court, who was sentenced to Transportation for life. The second accused in the lower Court was acquitted.

(3.) ON the morning of Tuesday, the 14th of August last, the deceased was found lying dead with no marks of violence that were apparent to those who then saw her. Her jewels were however missing; and when the doctor found that she had met her death by throttling, suspicion at once fell on the three accused, who had been attending on her. The third accused was questioned first by the police and she made a confessional statement. This led to the other two women being questioned, who also gave confessions. The confession of the second accused was not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, because it did not lead to the discovery of any material fact. That is the reason why the learned Judge acquitted her. The learned Judge however admitted a great part of the confessional statements of the first and third accused; and the portions admitted showed that they had participated in the murder. Upon reading through these confessional statements, we find that the learned Sessions Judge admitted more than was strictly necessary to discover the material fact that the jewels of the deceased woman were in the possession of the accused. The portion of Ex. E, the confessional statement of Valli Ammal, the first accused, which we consider to be admissible is this: