IN RE: RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Ramachandran, has been convicted of the murder of a woman named Pappal, and also of causing disappearance of the evidence of offence (Ss. 302 IPC and 201 I. P. C), and -sentenced to death for the offence of murder. The learned Sessions Judge of Tanjore, who tried the ease, has not imposed a separate sentence Under Section 201 IPC as he considered that, that was: not required or desirable, following the Bench decision of this Court in Ramagounden, In re. : AIR1942Mad275 .

(2.) THE appellant and Pappal, deceased, were related, being cousins and the appellant is a young -man of about 22, while the woman definitely older. The two were in illicit intimacy, which was also -a prohibited relationship, amounting to incest. Pappal was married and had two children, but she had left her husband, and was living with her mother, P, W. 1, in a house, the rear portion of which was occupied by the accused. We have very considerable evidence regarding the illicit intimacy, consisting of the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. There is also evidence that the deceased was of loose conduct with others as well, and this. is spoken to by P.Ws. 2 and 4. The suggestion for prosecution is that sexual jealousy probably motivated the appellant to commit this crime.

(3.) THOUGH Pappal thus disappeared, neither her' mother P.W. 1, nor any one else, seems to -have suspected anything gravely amiss. But at about 4 -25 p. m, on 13th March, the appellant appeared before Mr. Raghavachari, P.W. 7, the Judicial. Sub Magistrate of Papanasam, while the officer was in his court hall. The appellant then surrendered himself, after making a statement that he had murdered Pappal on the 11th March. It is important to note that both the mother of the victim, P.W. 1, and the police came to know of this offence only through learning about the statement of the accused to the magistrate. The subsequent', report of P.W. 1 to the village headman, (Ex. P 1),, and the yadhasts (Exs. P. 5 and P. 5 -a) were rightly excluded from consideration by the learned Session Tudge, as within the ambit of Section 162 CrI. P.C This apart, the Sub Magistrate recorded what the accused told him (Ex. P. 2) and sent a copy of the record to the police (Ex. P. 2 -a), upon which alone investigation followed. After the accused was remanded to the sub -jail by the magistrate, he was -interviewed by the Circle Inspector. P.W. 16, to -whom the accused gave some information. The evidence shows that this information was furnished previous to the order of the Sub Magistrate (Ex. P. 3 -a), formally delivering the appellant into police -custody. The importance of this will be obvious; later.