PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. AYYANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred the appeal against the acquittal of the accused Ayyanar on the charge of murder for having caused the death of" Rakkashiammal by cutting her with an aruval on the right leg at about 2 p.m. on 4th November, 1967 in Thottiapatti village, as a result of which the victim died at about 6 -25 p.m. on the way to the hospital., Learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 304(Part II) Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. The accused has not preferred any appeal against his conviction or sentence.

(2.) THE fact that the accused did cut Rakkashiammal on the afternoon of 4th November, 1967, is proved by reliable evidence in this case and it has not been challenged by the learned Advocate for the accused. The accused Ayyanar was keeping P.W. 1 Lingammal, a married woman, the daughter of the deceased Rakkashiammal. P.W. 1 Lingammal lent Rs. 300 belonging to her mother, the deceased, to P.W. 7 Pulungandi at the instance of the accused about two months prior to the occurrence in this case. But she subsequently asked the accused to get back the amount from P.W. 7 Pulungandi and the accused refused to do so and he was under the impression that P.W. 1 Lingammal was asking for the return of the money at the instigation of her mother, the deceased, and even expressed that only if the deceased Rakkashiammal was done away with, P.W. 1 Lingammal would keep quiet. This is put forward as a motive for the occurrence and it is no doubt trivial.

(3.) EVEN on the morning on the date of occurrence P.W. 1 Lingammal and her mother asked the accused to get back the money from P.W. 7 Pulugandi, but the accused told them to mind their business. On the afternoon of that date at about 2 p.m. P.W. 1 was returning home following her mother who was carrying a basket of grass. P.W. 4 Peria Rakkashi, the sister of the deceased Rakkashiammal, was following behind P.W. 1 Lingammal and deceased Rakkashi. P.W. 2 Muthiah Naicker the elder brother of the deceased Rakkashi was then proceeding to his held along the street and P.W. 3 Pambulu Naicker was following him. Thus both P.Ws. 2 and 3 were then proceeding in the opposite direction. All on a sudden, the accused came along a lane from the south armed with an aruval which is alleged to be M.O. 1 in this case, and cut Rakkashimamal on her right leg above the ankle saying The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 about the occurrence, though the accused denied the entire occurrence, but he was not inclined to accept the statement alleged to have been made by the accused There is really no reason for not believing the alleged use of the words by the accused, but, for the purpose of this appeal, we do not want to attach any importance to the statement. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, there is the evidence of P.W. 6 Poosammal who came there shortly after the occurrence and saw the accused running away with an aruval in his hand and the witness crying The aruval M.O. 1 was recovered from P.W. 9 Gurunathan on information given by the accused to the police, but there was no blood stains on the weapon.