CHINNASAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Salem in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1959 upon his file. The two appellants, Chinna samy (Accused 1) and Chinnan (Accused 2) have both been convicted at the trial of abduction in order to murder (Section 364 I. P. C), murder in. furtherance of a common intention (Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC) and causing disappearance of the evidence of crime (Section 201 I. P. C ). They have both been sentenced to death upon the main charge of murder, no separate sentences being awarded upon the other charges. The appeals of the condemned prisoners are also before us.

(2.) THIS case related to the deliberate and planned murder of a man named Minor alias Chin na Goundan residing at Aniyar Kolandapalayam village. There can be no doubt that this Minor Goundan was making life a vertiable inferno for his wife Ramayee, and his sons accused 1 and A" Marappan (P. W. 3 ). The deceased was a spendthrift and a drunkard, and not merely alienated properties worth seven or eight thousand rupees, hut had also contracted debts to the extent of four or five thousand rupees. When the deceased married Ramayee, the mother of accused 1, nearly twenty years back, he had conveyed some properties to her, apparently in accordance with caste custom. The deceased was pressing Ramayee to execute a reconveyance of those properties in his favour, and, when the woman refused, he was using violence against her and illtreating her in a very cruel manner. In addition to this, the deceased went to the extent f. of charging his wife (Ramayee) with illicit intimacy " with her own son in law Kandaswami, and this made her suffer so much that she was compelled to live apart from her husband. The evidence shows that this Minor Goundan was threatening to do away not only with Ramayee, but also with accused 1 because accused 1 had manifested sympathies for his mother. Ex. P 25, an entry in the General Diary at Velagoun danpatti police station shows that on 11 3 1959 accused 1 actually reported that his father Minor Goundan had beaten Ramayee, and the Head Constable (P, W. 10) had then advised accused 1 and. i his parents not to have dissensions amongst them' selves.

(3.) THE case for prosecution is that, disgusted with the conduct of Minor Goundan, accused 1 entertained a plan to decoy and murder him. Accused 1 first approached accused 2, and both the accused met Subramaniam (P. W. 1) who is the approver in this ease. The three concocted a plan to murder the deceased, though, as far as we can fudge from the facts of evidence, P. W. 1 and ac cused 2 participated in the plot mainly for gain;, accused 1 promised to bear all the expenses, and to pay each of them Rs. 500/. At the suggestion of accused 2, on Wednesday (15-4-1959) P. W. 1 went and told Minor Goundan that Ramayee would be decoyed by them, and others to a lonely spot, and that, by inflicting the necessary violence, she would be compelled to execute a reconveyance of the properties in favour of Minor Goundan. It appears that accused 1 had already divulged this supposed scheme to hi father. Minor Goundan eagerly fell in with the proposal, prompted by greed. At 4 P. M. or so that day, accused 1 and Minor Goundan riding on one bicycle, and P. W. 1 and accused 2 on the other, the party proceeded towards Aniyar Kolandapalayam. There is evidence that accused 1 borrowed one cycle from Pala niammal (P. W. 16) who is running a cycle hire shop at Koodacheri. The entire journey from the field shed of the deceased to the spot of offence, is best followed in evidence with the help of the plan Ex. P 30, which gives the necessary particulars.