KUPPUSAMIER Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted of having caused the deaths of three men and grievous hurt to six others. He admits that, in the course of a riot, he fired his gun seven times, but pleads that he did so in the lawful exercise of his right of private defence. The Sessions Judge, though he disbelieved every word of the evidence of eyewitnesses relied on by the prosecution, rejected the appellant's plea as well.

(2.) The riot took place in a village called Angambakam, which is inhabited mainly toy Mudaliars and Adidravidas. The Mudaliars were split into two factions, to one of which, the smaller, the Adidravidas attached themselves. This led to the larger faction deciding to get rid of the Adidravidas and to import labourers into the village from outside. As a result, the unfortunate Adidravidas were deprived of their means of livelihood and many of them had to emigrate. Matters came to a head in August last. On the 10 of that month a crowd of Adidravidas attacked the house of the leader of the opposite faction. This occurred in the afternoon and it is perfectly clear that the Mudaliars, the very same night, collected a large crowd- some of whom were imported rowdies- and set out to attack the Pallachari, which they wrecked. The appellant is an ex-sepoy, who had taken up the cause of the Adidravidas and was, doubtless, peculiarly obnoxious to the Mudaliars for that reason. He was be seiged in his house by the crowd, at which he fired seven times till it dispersed. Immediately afterwards he sent telegrams to the authorities, which - strangely enough-the prosecution has not produced. He was quite ready to tell his story when he was arrested, but was not allowed to do so till 22nd August. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was not entirely true and that he must have used his gun rather in a spirit is revenge than as a means of defence. In this conclusion I cannot agree. The various statements made by the appellant have impressed me very favourably and they present, in my opinion, every appearance of truth.

(3.) The evidence of P. Ws. 17 to 27, I can dismiss at once as obviously and flagrantly false. Their story briefly amounts to this-that the appellant without any provocation or cause walked about the Cheri taking pot shots at a number of peaceful citizens, who either were employed on their lawful occupations or had come to see what the trouble was about. The truth is, of course, that a large crowd of Mudaliars and hired rowdies came to the Cheri, armed with sticks and knives, in order to wreak vengeance on the Adidravidas. The appellant bolted himself into his house, which was attacked, and fired at the crowd through a small window. The Sessions Judge thinks that, having a gun and a large supply of ammunition and being inside a house behind locked doors, the appellant could have exercised a cool and calm judgment as to the precise amount of force he was entitled to use in order to defend himself effectively. One or two shots, aimed low, would, he considered, have been enough for that purpose. Criticizm of this sort is easy in the detached atmosphere of a Court, but the appellant was in a very different position. He was facing in the darkness an armed and hostile crowd. As a leader and protector of the Adidravidas he was particularly obnoxious to them. They were attacking his house and trying to break into it. If they succeeded, he had every reason to suppose that he would be roughly handled or even murdered. Under the circumstances, he was quite justified in firing at them and in continuing to fire, if the attack went on. To shoot so as to maim and not to kill was to invite further and still more bitter and determined attack. His plea that he was exercising his lawful right of private defence has, in my opinion, been completely made out. Every word of the evidence against him is false and I accept his story as substantially true. In the result, the convictions and sentences must be set aside and I direct that he be set at liberty. Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.