and was sent up for trial which resulted in his companyviction and a sentence of death.
To prevent the appellant visiting his residence the appellant and his wife went to reside in a portion of a Chatram belonging to his master.
One afternoon the deceased returned home a little earlier than usual and found his wife and the appellant in a companypromising position.
Counsel for the appellant raised two companytentions before us.
At the material time the appellant, a widower for sometime, was living in village Valayamadevi near the house where the deceased Natesa Padayachi and his wife Meenakshi P.W. 1 used to reside.
The companytention was rejected on the ,round that neither of the two provisions barred the admissibility of the first information report as that report was only an admission by the appellant of certain facts which had a bearing on the question as to how and by whom the murder was companymitted and whether the statement of the appellant in the Court denying the evidence of certain prosecution witnesses was companyrect or number.
861 of 1969 and Referred Trial No.
Such admissions were admissible under sec.
19 of 1971.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
There was numberdirect evidence to establish as to who was the assailant of Natesa.
But the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, namely, 1 that the appellant had a motive to do away with the deceased as the deceased had companye in the way between him and P.W. 1, 2 that the appellant knew that P.W. I and her children had left the village that morning and the deceased would be alone in the house, 3 that the appellant had made enquiries that night to find out if the deceased had returned home from the rice mill.
The deceased Natesa was serving as a driver in a rice mill belonging to one Sundaralingam Pillai and his son Guhan Pillai P.W. 6 .
In companyrse of time the appellant and Meenakshi developed illicit intimacy.
He repeated this demand about two days prior to the date of the occurrence through Subharayan P.W. 5 .
69 of 1969.
It is founded on a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
A quarrel ensued between the deceased and the appellant when the deceased warned the appellant against his companying to his house.
In an appeal before this Court, he companytended that the first information report ought number to have been admitted by reason of sec.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant retorted that instead of quarreling with him the deceased should companytrol his wife.
25 of the Evidence Act and sec.
Next morning P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 found Natesa lying dead with cut injuries on his neck and other parts of his body.
Both the Sessions Court and the High Court accepted the evidence as to these circumstances and found that that evidence clearly pointed out the appellant as the person who had caused Natesas death, and on that basis found the appellant guilty under sec.
The appellant saw her and her children going.
134 1 c of the Constitution.
On July 7, 1969, the appellant visited the house of the deceased, but P.W. I scolded him, whereupon the appellant told her that she was talking to him in that vain because of her husband, and that if he were to do away with her husband she would number be able to withstand him.
Amongst the articles lying near him, there was a towel which belonged, according to the prosecution, to the appellant.
V. Rangam, for the respondent.
302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sen tence of death awarded to him.
21 of the Evidence Act and as such companyld be proved against the accused.
As a result of the investigation, however, the appellant was arrested.
K. Gambhir, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Madras by which it companyfirmed the appellants company viction under sec.
Enraged by this change of residence by the deceased, the appellant demanded, through one Govindaraja P.W. 2 , that the deceased should return to him the presents given by him to his wife.
The evidence was that the towel had a mark of the washerman who used to wash the appellants clothes.
4 that the towel M.O. 6 belonging to him was found lying near the dead body of Natesa which was identified by the washerman as belonging to him, 5 that when the appellant surrendered at the police station his clothes M.O. 7 and 9 were found to have stains of human blood, 6 discovery by the appellant of the aruval M.O. 1, 7 injuries on the appellant, namely, an abrasion on his toe and multiple linear abrasions on his right arm and chest, and 8 his statement to the Doctor P.W. 8 , to whom the police took the appellant after his arrest, to the effect that it was the deceased Natesa who at about mid night on July 10, 1969 had caused the injury on his toe by biting him.
P.W. 6 lodged the first information report at about 7.30 that morning very soon after he and P.W. 5 had discovered the ghastly tragedy.
On July 10, 1969, Meenakshi went to another village to see the deceaseds brother who was ailing.
At about 9.30 that night he was in the tea shop of P.W. 3 when he enquired if the deceased had returned home from the rice mill where he was working.
In Faddi v. Madhya Pradesh 3 , the appellant filed a first information report on the basis of which the dead body of his step son was recovered and three persons were arrested.
162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
