SUBBARATNAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard several batches of appeals which arise out of grave riota in Karuc on 20th July 1946 in the course of which arson was committed in several buildings, and the movables therein including two motor oars, jutkas, bales of yarn, bandloom goods, iron safes etc. , were burnt by a frenzied mob composed mainly of weavers who got completely out of hand. We are particularly concerned in these appeals with the family of Maiiappa Mudaliar who had a handloom weaving factory in the Coimbatore road in which he had no looms worked by we avers for wages. In the by-pass road which takes off to the south almost opposite his factory building, in a portion of which he also resided with his family, there were three other buildings occupied by his brother's sons, Arumugam and Subramaniam and his brother-inlaw Manikka Mudaliar. Mariappa Mudaliar had a garage and stable adjoining these buildings in which he kept his ford oar, three jutkas and two horses. his factory and all thecae buildings including two motor cars, one belonging to Arumugba Mudaliar, were set fire to by a mob in the course of the day.

(2.) THERE were three separate sessions cases out of which all these appeals arise in which several accused were separately tried on charges of rioting, arson and kindred offences in respect of the buildings of Mariappa Mudaliar, Aru-mugha Mudaliar and Manicka Mudaliar. Separate trials were found necessary in view of the personnel of the accused not being the same though several were common to all cases. There were in addition two other sessions oases arising out of arson in two other buildings, in addition to a number of cases said to have been tried by Magistrates.

(3.) THERE can be no doubt?and this i3 not disputed by the appellants ? that there was rioting and arson on a very grave Bcale that day in Karur, Some photographs filed bear eloquent testimony to the damage done.