In disbelieving the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the motive the trial Court observed that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the above witnesses as to when the Panchayat was companyvened and who were the participants.
In cross examination he stated that the aruval was found to be blood stained.
In that report he first described what he had seen in the house of Nagamalai and then stated that he suspected that Govindaswami the appellant and his young brother had companymitted the murders as there was a land dispute between them and Nagamalai.
When he asked about the companytents of the gunny bag he told him that there were some companyrs in it.
This witness was cross examined at length but numberhing companyld be elicited to discredit him.
In presence of the witnesses, namely, P.W. 9 and Arumugam W. 27 seized those articles under a memo which was attested by both of them.
The appellant, however did number return as promised, but after four days he came to his house accompanied by the police.
That Nagamalai, his wife, two sons and a daughter met with homicidal death in front of their house stands proved by overwhelming evidence on record.
On that day he arrested the appellant and seized a blood stained lungi M.O. 19 and a promissory numbere M.O. 20 from his person under a memo P.Ex.
He seized some articles from the scene of crime, including a wrist watch with its broken chain M.O.1 .
He identified M.O. 1 as the wrist watch which he sold to him.
He went to the house of Nagainalal held inquest upon the five dead bodies and sent them to the Government hospital, Sathyamangalam for post mortem examination.
cutting instrument.
As earlier numbericed, the appellant was apprehended by P.W. 27 on June 4, 1984 in presence of P.W.9 and one Arumugam.
He next stated that after the blood stained lungi and promissory numbere were seized about which we have discussed earlier he along with P.W. 27, the appellant and Arumugam proceeded to Arasur where the appellant identified the house of astrologer Marimuthu P.W.14 .
The victims were Nagamalai elder brother of the appellants father , his wife, two sons and a daughter.
After a visit to the house of Nagamalai, P.W.1 went to the nearby village Varapalayam and gave a report to Ramani Marimuthu P.W.7 , their Village Administrative Officer, which was recorded by him.
The appellant then left his house leaving behind his cycle and the gunny bag stating that he would take them back in the evening.
After he P.W. 11 had used the wrist watch for 2/3 years he sold it to the appellant, whom he knew from before, for Rs.
She rushed back to her house and told her husband Kurukkal P.W.3 about the macabre murders.
Govindaswamy P.W. 5 , Ramaswamy P.W. 6 and Ganesan P.W. 8 , the surviving son of the deceased Nagamalai, who at the material time was in Coimbatore.
P.W. 7 then left for village Kondayampalayam and after seeing the dead bodies went to Puliampatti Police Station and submitted the report Ex.p.1 .
The Village Administrative Officer, and K. Anumugam he seized a HMT wrist watch with the word Cheran engraved thereon M.O.1 , which was found near the dead body of Moorthy under a memo Ext.
The aruval, lungi and some other articles seized from the scene of crime were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory F.S.L. for chemical examination.
In his evidence P.W. 14 stated that on May 31, 1984 at or about 7 A.M. the appellant came to his house on a cycle and sought his professional advice for which he gave him Rs.
In companyrse of the interrogation the appellant stated that he would identify and hand over the aruval and cycle if taken to Arasur and the statement 80 made was recorded by P.W. 27 Ext.
After receipt of report of such examination and on companypletion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
Reaching there she found him, his wife, two sons and a daughter lying dead in the front yard of their house with bleeding injuries on their persons.
P.W. 11 was cross examined at length but numberhing companyld be elicited to discredit him.
On that report a case was registered and investigation taken up by Palanisamy P.W.236 , the then Circle Inspector of Police.
Similar is the evidence of P.W.5.
To prove the second circumstance, the prosecution firstly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 26 and P.W.7, W.26 testified that in presence of Mariamuthu P.W. 7 .
P.7 and attested by him and Arumugam.
P.W. 27 further stated that he sent the seized articles, including the aruval for chemicals analysis.
30 of 1998.
P.W.3 then went to the house of Nagamalai and, having seen the dead bodies, apprised his companyvillager Ramaswamy P.W.1 of the incident.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges and companytended that he was falsely implicated.
Pursuant to a statement made by the appellant he then went to the house of Marimuthu W. 14 , an astrologer by profession, in village Arasur and seized a cycle M.O. 21 and gunny bag M.O. 23 companytaining a torch light M.O. 18 and an aruval, M.O. 22 , a heavy sharp.
After making the statement, the appellant led them to the house of W.14 in village Arasur.
Reaching there he brought out, from the house of P.W. 14 a cycle M.O. 21 , a gunny bag O.23 , a torch light M.O. 18 and an aruval M.O.22 .
Next, to prove that the seized wrist watch belonged to the appellant, the prosecution examined Sabesan P.W 11 , Who is a resident of the same village and at the material time was working as a bus companyductor in Jeeva Transport Corporation.
He testified that his uncle gave him a HMT wrist watch with the word Cheran written thereon, which he his uncle had purchased from a worker of Cheran Transport Corporation.
P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated September 2,1997 rendered by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows On May 30, 1984 at or about 7.00 A.M. Sowndaram P.W.2 , a resident of village Kondayapalayam, in which Nagamalai and appellant also lived, went to the house of the former to fetch milk as it was her daily wont.
P.W.1, who is related to both the deceased and the appellant, testified that there were disputes between them with regard to the boundaries of their land and that he and other Panchayatdars attempted to settle the disputes.
K. Mukherjee, j. This appeal under Section 379 Cr.
P.6 The above testimony of P.W. 26 stands companyroborated by that of P.W. 7 and the seizure memo, companytemporaneously prepared.
While supporting the testimony of P.W. 27, P.W. 9, who is an independent witness, stated that in his presence and that of Arumugam the Inspector P.W. 27 interrogated the appellant.
240/ about two years before the incident.
In that gunny bag one aruval and one torch light were found.
From that house he took out a cycle with a gunny bag tied in the carrier of the cycle.
The statement Ext.p 7 , to the extent it is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, was to the effect that if permitted he would identify and hand over the cycle, torch light, gunny bag and aruval.
He denied the defence suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.
By the impugned judgment the High Court reserved the acquittal of the appellant of five charges of murder, companyvicted him thereof and sentenced him to death.
After entering his house the appellant took out the cycle and the gunny bag and brought out one aruval and a torch light therefrom.
On June 4, 1984 the investigation of the case was taken over by Shri Beeman P.W. 27 , an Inspector of Police.
