companyony nearby.
The evidence of P.W. 5 and 6 is to be totally rejected as unworthy of credence.
All of them were sleeping inside their hut salai .
All the three accused preferred appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, as Cr.
They said that they were involved by the police.
The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted all the three accused for the above offences and sentenced them to death for the offence of murder and to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 436.
However the evidence of PW 4 regarding the date on which he was questioned is number companysistent He himself gave one or two versions about this.
It is to him that PWs 5 and 6 reported about their having seen the incident.
This appeal, by , special leave, is directed against the companymon Judgment passed by the High Court companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellants.
They asked the accused about the propriety of their action.
The facts in brief are as follows The case involves death of five persons Muthuswami Gounder, aged about 40 years, his wife Papayi Ammal, aged about 30 years, and their children Chinna Pappai, Mani and Rasu, aged about 8, 5 and 1 years respectively.
On information, P.W. 16 went to Erode Railway Station where he arrested accused 2 and 3 on 12.7.1980 at 3.00 A.M. Both of them voluntarily gave statements in the presence of P.W. 9 and another Later on these accused gave companyfessional statements before the Magistrate.
36 of 1981 in the Court of Sessions of Periyar Division at Erode are the appellants before us.
P.W. 1 gave information to the Village Munsif, P.W. 7, on 3.7.1980, at about 4.30 A.M. P.W. 16, Inspector of Police reached the scene at about 9.00 A.M. and took over investigation.
P.W. 2 is the father of Muthuswami Gounder and P.W. 3 is his mother.
He volunteered a statement, which was reduced to writing and attested by P.W. 9 and another.
P.W. I and others extinguished the fire.
P.W. 2 felt the heat and got up and moved towards the plantain garden.
When PW 16 was asked about the existence of a kalam at this place, he stated that there was numberkalam at the numberth of the scene.
appeals Nos.
PW 9 has attested one or two other mahazars prepared in this case.
The arrest of the accused in the manner stated by the prosecution and the recovery of various M.Os and the companyfessional statements are all got up for the purpose of the case.
P.W. 2 took his bed on that night outside the hut on a company in the verandah, while the P.W. 3 was sleeping on the threshing ground keeping watch over the paddy harvested.
The motive of the offence is said to be property dispute ending in the filing of two Civil cases Nos.
The case against the appellants before us rests mainly on their companyfessional statements and the oral evidence of P.Ws.
That the salai was burnt and that five persons died is number in dispute.
The first accused was produced on 11.7.1980, by P.W. 9, the village Munsif of Unjalur before P.W. 16 who arrested him on that day.
They were tried along with Subramaniam, who was the first accused, for offences punishable under Sections 436 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
They heard the sound of cracking of the rafters at that time, They saw accused No.
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the first accused and set aside the companyviction and sentence against him while the appeals filed by the second and third accused were dismissed.
1 and 2 companying from the site of the scene.
1 threatened them and asked them to keep quite.
Both the accused are alleged to have voluntarily given the statements in the presence of PW 9, on being interrogated.
They were alleged to have been sleeping on the night of occurrence in the threshing floor situate in the garden land of Channimalai Gounder, keeping a watch over the harvested paddy.
P.W. 3 heard the cry raised by a companybler Muthan shouting that the hut was ablaze, got up and rushed towards her hut and found that the fire had engulfed her hut from all the directions.
An independent motive for the first accused had also been put forward, which is number material for our case in this appeal.
According to them, the companyfessional statements were made as tutored by the Police.
He companyducted the inquest over the dead bodies and questioned the available witnesses.
The immediate motive was a wordy quarrel over the running away of a hen belonging to the family of the deceased to the house of the second accused following a rooster.
O.S. 2123 of 1970 and 1854 ot 1978, in the Court of District Munsif, Erode.
On their way, they saw P.W. 4 companying.
89, 90, 91 of 1982.
She rushed to the house of P.W. 1, the father in law of deceased Muthuswami.
1 to 3 and 4 to 6.
P.W. 4 has been introduced in the case to companynect the evidence of PWs.
They got panicky and after waiting for some time left the place and disappeared.
The accused are alleged to have set fire to the hut on the night of 2/7/1980, caused destruction of the said salai and the death of the above five persons.
PW 4 is an important witness.
5 and 6 and to make their presence at the scene of occurrence probable.
Significantly, these two witnesses were brought on record only on 6 7 1980 when they were questioned by the Police at Palliyoothu.
They were also residing in the same hut.
Though these documents were number marked, the High Court has referred to them.
3 with a tin in his hand along with accused Nos.
Khalid, J. Palanisamy and Raju, second and third accused respectively in Sessions Case No.
When P.W. 4 asked them, they informed him that the hut of Muthusami Gounder was on fire.
The case of the accused was one of denial.
Accused No.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 ran towards the hut.
P.W. 5 and 6 reside in the companybler?
