THANGASWAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in S. No. 79 of 1959 upon his file. The accused, Thangam alias Thangaswami Thevar, has been convicted of murder under Section 302, I. P. C. and robbery under Section 392, I. P. C. and sentenced to death upon the first charge, and to rigorous imprisonment for ten years upon the second, the sentence of imprisonment to merge with the sentence of death. Since the case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and the facts involve the application of a legal principle, which is of some interest and significance, we shall first set out the facts in detail.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the offence relates to the murder of an old woman named nacharammal, and there can be no doubt that this woman was murdered at a lonely spot for the sake of her jewels, and that the jewels she habitually wore were missing from her person when the body was discovered. Nacharammal (deceased) belonged to Keelaka- vanur village and was aged about 60 at the time of (sic) she met with her death. It appears that the accused was acquainted with her. Raman Chetti, P. W. 6, is a man of this village who used to send bags of paddy to one Ponnuswami Chettiar P. W. 7, a merchant of Paramakudi and a commission agent for paddy and other grains. Three months before this murder, p. W. 6 sent six bags of paddy through the accused, who carted the bags for the witness, to P. W. 7. But the accused delivered only three bags and apparently misappropriated the rest. There was a panchayat on this matter, and the accused was compelled to give P. W. 6 Rs. 30 for the paddy taken away. P. W. 6, P. W. 7 and the village munsif, P. W. 8 all speak to these facts. It appears that Nacharammal, decesed, used to taunt the accused often with the misappropriation. But this is really of no significance in the case, except as showing that the accused was acquainted with the old woman, and presumably aware of the jewels that she ordinarily wore. There can be no doubt at all that the victim was murdered for the sake of gain and the evidence relating to the misappropriation of the bags by the accused merely amounts to proof of knowledge of the old woman as the wearer of certain jewels, and not any proof of an adequate motive.

(3.) IT may be further stated here itself that the accused belongs to a different village (Radha-puli) and not to the village of Keelakavanur, where Nacharammal was living. This is also made dear by the evidence of P. W. 6 and the village munsif, P. W. 8, that P. W. 6 had to proceed to Radharapuli for the panchayat at which he was given redress.