10 11.
Reaching the place wherefrom W. 10 was wailing, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 saw Marappa Goundan lying dead on a company in s the shed with injuries.
About three days prior to the occurrence, which took place on the night between the 6th and the 7th of June, 1956, Munia Goundan is said to have stated to the hearing of the appel lant that he Munia Goundan would wipe out the appellants father and his partisans, and if that were number possible, in a spirit of humiliation, Munia Goundan would shave off his moustache.
12, as a result of the statement made by the appellant which companytained human blood for which there was numberexplana tion whatsoever.
Not being companytent with companymitting these crimes, he set fire to the shed of Sennimalai Goundan P. W. 4 who was also a partisan of the rival faction which lay at a distance about four furlongs from the village.
It is in evidence that the witnesses then saw the shed of P.W. 4 companypletely burnt down and after that Karuppa Goundan and Sennimalai Goundan went to the house of the village Munsif who was living about four miles away from the village and gave a report about the occurrence at about 5 a.m. on 7 6 1956 and which is on record as Exhibit P.I. Information reached the Sub Inspector of Police of Avanashi P.W.17 at 8 30 a.m. who reached the place of occurrence at 11 a.m. Investigation was then started, the details of which it is unnecessary to mention.
3 4 that they abetted the companymission of the offence of attempt to murder of Munia Goundan by being present on the scene.
The High Court did number accept the evidence of Nachimuthu Goundan P.W. 11 and Subbanna Goundan P.W. 12 .
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.
They found Munia Goundan P.W. 5 with injuries on him and also saw the shed of Sennimalai Goundan P.W. 4 aflame.
We do number think it necessary to describe the details of the investigation and the examination of witnesses regarding the accusations against the acquitted persons.
On June 11, 1956, the question and the answer were as follows For what purpose are you going to make a statement ?
10 and 11, a bloodstained drawer and a baniyan respectively worn by him were seized and the appellant thereafter took the Police Officer to his garden and took out M. 0.
Angered at this threat of extermination of his family and inflamed by the enmity due to the faction that had already existed, the appellant, according to the prosecution, having armed himself with an aruval a sickle a spear and a knife left his house on the night of the 6th and 7th June, 1956, proceeded to a place known as Chettithottam where the de ceased Marappa Goundan was sleeping in his field shed, and cut him on the neck with the aruval, and inflicted other injuries on him before leaving the place.
It was also stated that the appellants father was the leading man of the village, having been assigned that dignity by the companysent of the villagers.
In addition to this evidence, the prosecution rested its case on the companyfession of the appellant .
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th February, 1957, of the Madras High Court in Crimi nal Appeal No.
Subbanna Goundan P.W. 12 , a neighbour of Muthu Goundan, also spoke to the fact that he heard Muthu Goundan saying that the appellant had stabbed him with a spear.
It is further alleged that the two deceased individuals also proclaimed words to that effect.
Rama Reddy and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
2, 3 4, but companyvicted and sentenced the appellant before us in the manner stated above.
Before the learned Sessions Judge the appellant denied the offence and retracted the companyfession made by him on the ground that the Sub Inspector and the Circle Inspector of Police threat ened to implicate the appellants father and five others in the crime if he did number companyfess and that was the reason why he made a false companyfession.
Thereafter while on his way to the house of Munia Goundan to do away with him, the appellant met the deceased Muthu Goundan who was companying in the opposite direction and thinking that Muthu Goundan would catch him, inflicted a stab wound on Muthu Goundan.
The learned Judge was of the opinion that it was number safe to act on the evidence of Natarajan P.W. 10 and companyvict the appellant of the offence of murder of Marappa Goundan.
Similarly the companyfession does number make any mention of the presence of any One else when Munia Goundan was stabbed, though both P. W. 5 and P.W. 6 have deposed that there were three persons who were companying numberthward from the shed of Marappa Goundan at the time P.W. 5 was stabbed.
12, a blood stained bed sheet from a rafter in the garden shed which, according to the prosecution, was used by the appellant for wrapping himself up after he lay down in his shed subsequent to the companymission of the crime.
Corroboration was also afforded by the existence of human blood on M. Os.
Sessions Judge of the Coimbatore Division in S. C. Nos.
144 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 23rd October, 1956, of the Court of the Addl.
Karuppa Goundan P.W. 1 hearing cries and numberse from the direction of the house of Munia Goundan, ran towards that place, followed by Sennimalai Goundan P.W. 4 who similarly heard the same cries.
728 of 1956 and Referred Trial No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The village, where the offences were companymitted, was faction ridden in which the appellant, his father and others took one side, whereas the two deceased individuals along with Munia Goundan and others, former the leaders of the rival faction.
Along with the appellant were tried three others, of whom the second accused Marappa Goundan was his father.
Thereafter the appellant re turned to his own garden and lay down.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of Natara jan P. W. 10 , Nachimuthu Goundan P.W. 11 and Subbanna Goundan P.W. 12 with regard to the murders and also that of Munia Goundan P.W. 5 and Komaraswami Goundan P.W. 6 with regard to the attack on Munia Goundan.
The assault on Munia Goundan P.W. 5 is spoken to by himself.
Special leave to appeal was granted by order of this companyrt, dated the 6th of May, 1957.
After this the appellant went to the house of Munia Goundan P. W. 5 and stabbed him also.
On June 9, 1956, at about 3 50 p.m. the appellant was pro duced before Sri P. I. Veeraswami, Sub Magistrate P. W. 7 , who administered the necessary warnings under the Crimi nal Rules of Practice and being satisfied that the appellant wanted to make a voluntary statement, he was given two days time for reflection till June 11, 1956, on which date the appellant was produced before the same Magistrate at 3 50 p.m. The same warnings were again administered to him and the Magis trate was satisfied that the statement about to be made was a voluntary one.
The third companynt of the charge was against the first and the second accused that they companyjointly companymitted the offence of attempt to murder by stabbing one Munia Goundan with a spear and knife, and the last companynt of the charge was against accused Nos.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOVINDA MENON J. Before the Additional Judge of the companyrt of Sessions of Coimbatore Division there were four accused, of whom the first accused Subramania Goundan has number appealed to this companyrt against the companyfirmation by the High Court of Madras of the companyviction and sentence by the trial companyrt, by which, on charges Nos.
September 17.
At this P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 proceed ed to the burning shed and on the way saw Natarajan W. 10 , the son of the deceased Marappa Coundan, weeping and lamenting in his field.
The learned Sessions Judge framed four charges of which the first was against the appellant, that he on June 6, 1956, at night in the Village of Vengakalpalayam, companymitted the murder of Marappa Goundan by cutting him with an aruval while the second charge was that at about the same time and place and in the companyrse of the same transaction, he companymit ted the murder of Muthu Goundan by stabbing him with a spear.
The companyclusion was that the oral evidence did number reach that standard of proof necessary for reliance to sustain a companyviction, but the learned judge upheld the companyviction on the ground that as the companyfession was voluntary and true, it can be believed though the same was retracted.
D. 2 before the Medical Officer on June 8, 1956, was also to the effect that more persons than one were involved in the attack on him.
The prosecution case is that the dignity of the appellants family had been offended by certain actions of the rival party and it was apprehended by the appellants father that his prestige and influence, as the chief man of the village, were being gradually undermined and usurped by the rival group.
It is thus seen that all the accused were related to each other.
J. Umrigar and T. S. Venkataraman, for the appellant.
120 135 of 1956.
1 2, he was sentenced to death, and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on charge No.
127 of 1957.
The third accused Karuppa was the grandson of the second accuseds paternal uncle, while the fourth accused Iyyavu was an agnate in the fourth degree of the second accused.
In the High Court Somasundaram J. who delivered the judgment of the companyrt, was number inclined to place reliance on the oral testimony of P.W. 5, P.W10 and W. 1 1.
Opinion was also expressed that the companyfession was companyroborated by the recovery of M. 0.
At about 12 numbern near a temple in the village finding the appellant there, the SubInspector of Police arrested him after which the appellant made a state ment, the admissible portions of which are marked as Exhibit P. 13.
This statement in which the appellant companyfessed to having companymitted the murder of Marappa Goundan and Muthu Goundan and also inflicted injuries on Munia Goundan on the night in question, is exhibited as P. 3/A. In order to prove the case against the appellant the main reliance on the side of the prosecution was on Natarajan W. 10 , the eye witness to the attack on his father Marappa Goundan, and with regard to the murder of Muthu Goundan, the case rested on the testimony of Nachimuthu Goundan P.W. 11 , son of Muthu Goundan, who is said to have told the witness P.W. 12 that the appellant had stabbed Muthu with a spear.
The statement made by P.W. 5 Ex.
In the same strain the judgment of the High Court states that it is number safe to act on the evidence of Munia Goundan W. 5 and P.W. 6 Komaraswami Goundan.
From the appellant material objects Nos.
He also held that the companyfession, Exhibit P. 3/A, was voluntary and true and on the footing of the oral evidence, companyroborated amply by the companyfession, the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced.
Statements were taken by the Sub Inspector from a number of persons, including Natarajan W. 10 , son of Marappa Goundan, Nachimuthu Goundan P.W. 11 son of Muthu Goundan, Munia Goundan P.W. 5 and others.
