MUTHIAH THEVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case, again illustrates, the inconvenience and difficulties experienced especially by a Court of appeal when the doctor who speaks to the post mortem examination of the body is examined as the very first witness for the prosecution. We feel that if the doctor had been examined after the eyewitnesses' testimony had been recorded, the learned Sessions Judge would have been in a much better position to have an overall idea of the entire prosecution case so that he would have been in a better situation to put proper questions to the doctor to elucidate fully the nature of the injuries.

(2.) The appellants were accused 2 and 3 respectively in the Court below. Appellant 1 has been sentenced to death for the murder of Veeranna by cutting him at about 6 A. M. on 29th March 1948. Appellant 2 was also charged along with the first for the same offence; but the learned Sessions Judge found him not guilty of having any common intention with Appellant 1 to commit the murder, and therefore he was convicted only of an offence under Section 324, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(3.) The prosecution case is very simple. P. W. 4 according to his testimony, had gone a few days prior to the date of murder to the house of accused 2 for the purpose of borrowing a vel stick for boar hunting. At that time accused 2 was not in the house, the time of the visit being night time. Accused 2 probably thought that P. W. 4 went there as he was friendly with accused 2's wife. This is alleged to be the motive for attacking P. W. 4. Shortly stated, what happened on the day of occurrence was this. At about dawn, P. W. 4 had gone to answer the calls of nature and was returning homewards, when accused 2 met him and attempted to cut P. W. 4 with the aruval which accused 2 was having with him. On seeing this P. W. 4 ran raising an alarm. Accused 3 who had also been armed with a vel stick chased him and both of them ran after P. W. 4; but fortunately he outstripped them and hence could not be injured; but the father of P. W. 4 on hearing this noise and the cry of P. W. 4 came running and wanted to intercede. Accused 2 then, according to the prosecution case now, cut the deceased, the father of P. W. 4, on the right side of the neck. The accused 3 stabbed him on the left shoulder with a vel stick. P. W. 4 pelted a stone at accused 3 which foiled him down. P. W. 6 came running from the north and tried to separate but accused 2 could not be pacified at all. He again cut the deceased on the neck and on the head. Afterwards the accused ran away when the deceased fell down. The deceased was taken to the house of the village munsif P. W. 9, at about 6-30 A. M. that is nearly within half an hour of the occurrence, and a statement was recorded at the house of the village munsif which was written by a teacher, P. W. 8; Ex. P 4. In that statement the deceased stated that when he was returning home accused 2 came from the Mandaiamman temple and cut him with a vettaruval on the neck. After he fell down, accused 2 cut the deceased again twice on the left shoulder. Accused 3 stabbed the deceased above the left elbow with a spear and cut him on the head above the right eye with a spear. Therefore according to this statement of the deceased, which is a dying declaration, the injury on the head above the right eye was given with a spear by accused 3 and the other serious injuries were given by accused 2. After this statement was recorded, the deceased was sent to the hospital at Uthamalapalayam where he was admitted as an inpatient. By the time he reached the hospital, the deceased was unconscious and so no further statement could be taken from him. In spite of the best medical aid that could be given the deceased died on 15th April 1948. It is unnecessary to state at any length about the various other stages in the investigation, for though three persons were charge-sheeted the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 1 before him.