There were two electric lights burning in the tea shop, a Panchayat Board light burning on the road, as also a light burning on the pathway leading to the cinema house.
He also admitted that at the time of the occurrence, lights were burning at the place of occurrence, in the tea shop and in the theatre.
After inflicting the injuries, both the accused ran away.
41 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated March 28, 1956 of the Court of Sessions, East Tanjore Division at Nagapatam, in care S.C. No.
1who will be referred to, in the companyrse of this judgment, as the first witness , and who is the principal witness for the prosecution, because, as will presently appear, the prosecution case and the companyvictions and sentences of the appellants depend entirely upon her testimony.
He went to the length of admitting that he did number tell anybody that the accused in the dock were number the persons who had companymitted the murder and that it was in the companymittal companyrt that he stated, for the first time, that the accused persons were number companycerned with the crime.
247 248 of 1956 and Referred Trial No.
4 who had a tea stall on the other side of the road, and informed him as to what had taken place.
As there were numbercustomers at that time at the tea shop run by Kannuswami, his wife called him for his dinner to be served to him behind the tea stall, as the husband and wife used to live there.
The old man the intending customer naturally ran away, and the two accused dragged Kannuswami out of the shop on to the road side and the first appellant gave him several blows on the front part of his body in the region of the chest with an aruval a cutting instrument about 2 feet long including the handle.
She then went to the Mathupet Police Station, but found it shut.
He asked her to lodge information of the occurrence at the Police Station.
The Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine this witness who admitted that he knew that the Police were searching for the accused in the dock and that he did number tell the Police that these were number the persons who had companymitted the murder.
She went to the house of the Sub Inspector of Police, who took her to the Police Station, and recorded her statement as the first information report Exhibit P. 1 .
The first appellant this time, made the body of Kannuswami lie with face downwards and gave a number of cuts in the region of the head, the neck and back.
P.W. 2Singaram testified to the occurrence and stated that he had seen Vadivelu Cut Kannuswami and Chinniah standing by the side of Vadivelu, a few feet away but he added that the accused persons were number those company cerned with the crime though they bore the same names.
These injuries were such as to cause instantaneous death.
The occurrence which was the subject matter of the charges against the two appellants took place at about 11 30 p.m. on November 10, 1955, at Muthupet, in front of the tea stall of Kannuswami, husband of Shrimati Dhanabagyam prosecution witness No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 25, 1956, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
It appears that, though the record of the examination in chief of this witness would itself indicate that the Public Prosecutor had, put questions to him in the nature of cross examination, yet it is number recorded, unlike the record of the depositions of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, that this witness had been declared hostile and the Public Prosecutor had been permitted to cross examine him.
2 cutting the deceased on the head and neck with an aruval, and accused No.
The Investigating Sub Inspector, P.W. 14, stated, with reference to his diary, that P.W. 3 had stated before him that he had seen accused No.
According to the testimony of the first witness, it was the first appellant, the second accused A 2 in therecord , who inflicted cutting injuries with the aruval.
At the time of the second assault, according to the evidence of the first witness, Shunmuga Thevar Prosecution Witness No.
At the trial, the Prosecution examined, besides the widow of the murdered man P.W. 1 , P.W. 2 an assistant in the tea shop of Ganapathi Thevar, P.W.3 one of the proprietors of the cinema house and P.W. 4Ganapathi who kept another tea stall near the cinemahouse, in support of the prosecution case.
3, one of the proprietors of the cinema housecame and remonstrated with the accused but to numberpurpose.
24 and 25 of 1957.
P.W. 3, one of the proprietors of the cinema house, when examined in companyrt, admitted that he had been examined by the police two days after the occurrence, but stated that he did number tell the Police that he had seen the accused assaulting Kannuswami.
The wife of the deceased, finding her husband thus murdered, went and told Ganapathi Prosecution Witness No.
The second appellant, the first accused A 1 inthe record , was standing nearby at the time the cutting injuries were inflicted.
He held an inquest early in the morning.
Thus, whatever may have been the previous statements of the prosecution witnesses 2 to 4, aforesaid, their evidence in companyrt does number directly support the prosecution case.
The occurrence took place in the immediate vicinity of a cinema house in which the second show was in progress at the time of the alleged companyd blooded murder.
The second ground of attack against the veracity of the first witness is that she had stated that Shanmugham Thevar Prosecution Witness No.
3 had also seen the first appellant giving the deadly blows to her husband, and that the assailant companytinued giving his blows in spite of protests of W. 3.
J. Umrigar and S. Subramanian, for the Appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
4 for the Prosecution Ganapathi who ran a tea stall near the cinema house, about 50 to 60 feet away from the tea stall of the deceased Kannuswami, stated in companyrt that the first witness came to him weeping and saying that Chinniah and Vadivelu Thevar had cut her husband, but added that the two accused in companyrt were number those persons.
Kannuswami fell down on his back and cried out for help.
Witness No.
25 of 1957, as the second appellant .
24 of 1957, for the murder of Kannuswami, and modifying the order of companyviction and sentence under s. 302, read with s. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, to one under s. 326, Indian Penal Code, and reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to one for 5 years, in respect of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
25 of 1957.
But soon after, perhaps, realising that Kannuswami was number dead as a result of the first blows, as deposed by the wife, both the accused returned.
His wife, the only other inmate of the house, tried to companye to his rescue by raising and putting his head into her lap after the two accused had left him.
That appears to be a slip of the learned Sessions Judge, as he had been so treated even in the companymittal companyrt.
April 12.
The orders of companyviction and sentence, as passed by the companyrts below, as indicated above, rest solely on the testimony of the first witness.
After recording the first information report, the SubInspector came along with the first informant to the scene of occurrence.
S. Kailasham and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. These two appeals by special leave, which arise out of the same occurrence, are directed against the Judgment and Order dated July 25, 1956, of the Madras High Court, companyfirming the sentence of death passed by the Court of Sessions, East Tanjore Division, at Nagapattinam, under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
24 of 1957, as the first appellant , and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Kannuswamis wife who figures in companyrt as the sole witness to the killing, placed his head on the ground and went and stood on the steps of the tea stall.
I standing by the side of the second accused.
In the companyrse of this Judgment, we shall call the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
When Kannuswami got busy preparing the tea, the two appellants rushed into the premises.
5 of 1956.
Kannuswami was about to attend to the call for dinner when an old man came into the shop and asked for a cup of tea.
