GOLLA CHENCHURAMAYYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and another were charged before the Sessions Judge of Nellore with the murder of one Guruswami. The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence that accused B-took any part in the transaction in which the murder was committed. He, therefore, acquitted that accused. He convicted the two appellants of murder and sentenced them to death.

(2.) The deceased, the three accused, and the eye-witnesses are all Thottiyans and members of connected families. P.W. 3 is the husband of P.W. 6 and P. Ws. 4 and 5 are their daughters. The deceased was married to P.W. 5 and a brother of the two appellants was married to P.W. 4. P.W. 7 and the deceased were the sons of sisters, while P.W. 8 was a brother of the deceased. The quarrel that led up to this murder arose out of a dispute with regard to some ragi. P.W. 4 had a sick child and she wanted to purchase a talisman that it might wear to recover its health; and in order to raise the money, she took some of the family ragi. She was rebuked for this by the wife of accused 3, who was the senior female in the family. P.W. 3 came along while the quarrel was taking place and rebuked the women for quarrelling. P.W. 3 later came to blows with accused 3 and was knocked down. That led to further recrimination among the women, who then created such a disturbance that the two appellants, who were working in a field about a furlong away came running to the spot to see what had been done to their women. Even after they arrived, the quarrel continued; and the appellants became more angry as they heard and saw what was taking place. Accused 2 first expressed his annoyance by striking a stone with his pitch-fork. That had no effect and after some little time he became so annoyed that he took his pitch-fork and struck the deceased on the head with it. Accused 1 almost immediately raised a heavy stick taken from the side of a cart, and struck the deceased on the head. The deceased fell down immediately and died on the following day. When examined by the doctor, the deceased was found to have an extensive and radiating fracture of the skull forming a diamond-shaped depressed fracture, the sides of the diamond being about two inches. The piece that had been displaced was broken into eight smaller pieces, which had been driven into the brain substance. There was no possibility of recovery from this grave injury.

(3.) Although all the eye-witnesses are persons connected with the deceased, they are also interested in the accused; and there is no reason to suppose that their evidence was not true. A complaint was given as early as practicable; and at all stages their evidence has been consistent. The truth of the material part of their story is confirmed by the circumstance that the accused were long absconding. There are no important contradictions in their evidence; and the learned Judge says that they impressed him while in the box as persons speaking the truth. The learned advocate for the appellants very rightly does not contend that the evidence of-these witnesses is untrustworthy. He has argued that from the medical evidence it would appear that the deceased received only one blow; but that is not the case. P.W. 1, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, does say that the injuries could have been caused by one heavy blow; but he does not say that they could not have been caused by two blows, as the eye-witnesses say. On the contrary, he says that the injuries might have been caused by two blows. It would also seem probable that there were two blows; because the contused area on the head was most extensive. It spread from the seat of fracture across the frontal bone to the other side of the head.