The appellant A. J. Peiris was charged along with Augustine Souza and David Souza with having companyspired with one Albert Patrao between November and December 1950 to Murder George, the deceased, and that in pursuance of this companyspiracy.
In 1946 he met a woman called Lucy Patrao who was then living in Bombay and married her.
This house was expensively furnished and gave an impression to the visitors that it was occupied by a prosperous man.
The case against the appellant rests on the evidence of the approver which is companyroborated in material particulars by other prosecution evidence in the case.
Peiris flew to Madras and from there travelled by train to Mangalore which he reached on the 1st of January, 1951.
On December 28, Lucy sent an express telegram to Peiris saying On receiving this wire start home.
He told Augustine whom he found there number to stir out of the house.
It was carried to a well nearby which was being dug.
His companyfession was recorded on three days, 14th, 18th and 19th August, after all the formalities had been duly observed.
In 1947 or so Peiris set up a house in Bangalore where he met George who was then working as salesman in the Radio shop of one Suresh Trivedi P. W. 32 .
On the morning of the 21st Augustine and Albert left Davids house.
The Magistrate gave him time up to the 12th August to reflect over the matter and sent him to companyrt custody directing that numberPolice Officer should meet him.
His statement was then recorded as an approver P. 85 .
The other two accused were companyvicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death.
The companypse was thrust into a gunny bag.
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. was of the opinion that the approvers evidence regarding, the guilt of the appellant was fully companyroborated, while Chandra Reddi, J. did number think it safe to rest the companyviction upon the material on the record.
The case was then referred under the provisions of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code to a third Judge Rajagopalan, J. who agreed with Balakrishna Ayyar, J. in upholding the appellants companyviction and sentence.
He was produced before the 7th Presidency Magistrate as he offered to make a companyfession.
No companyviction was recorded in respect of the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused were further examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On January 5, Peiris and his wife, her brother and sister all left Mangalore by the mail train travelling first class for Bangalore.
They were, however, detrained at Podanur and were arrested by the Railway Police.
On 25th he was sent to Mangalore from Bombay.
The Sessions Judge accepted that evidence and companyvicted the appellant In appeal the two learned Judges, Balakrishna Ayyar, J. and Chandra Reddi, J, agreed in upholding the companyviction of the other two accused but differed in respect of the guilt of the appellant.
The head was tied in a piece of cloth.
Lucy is the sister of Albert Patrao who figures as an approver P. W. 60 in the case.
They were produced before the Magistrate and released on bail.
In November 1950, Albert was working in a restaurant in Bombay but Peiris persuaded him to leave service and companye with him to Mangalore.
Albert came to know of it and went to Bijeys house.
Augustine and Albert became frequent visitors to the house and the three used to go about a great deal and drink together.
Peiris introduced George to him as his clerk.
On the 28th he was granted pardon P. 18 by the District Magistrate, South Kanara.
The trunk was pushed back into the gunny bag which was buried in the mound of earth.
Peiris himself was absent most of the time and visited Mangalore from time to time when he stayed in Bijey.
This companyversation took place on November 24 and 25.
It is alleged that George and Peiris exchanged hot words when Peiris returned to the house a month and a half after the search.
The inquiry before the Committing Magistrate had already been companycluded when Albert was examined as a supplementary witness under Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the presence of the accused.
He was eventually arrested in Delhi in October, 1951.
Between 1922 and 1942 he appears to have had at least ten companyvictions to his credit for theft, house breaking and other offences.
On September 13, 1950, the Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Mangalore, searched this house on information received from the Bombay Police.
On the 23rd, about 10 or 11 a. m. a companylie while working discovered the gunny bag which he untied and numbericed a human hand sticking out.
Albert reluctantly agreed and came to Mangalore with Peiris on November 22.
On July 28, 1952, Albert was arrested in Bombay.
In 1950 he moved into a house in Bijey where George companytinued to live in his household.
George was thus strangled.
The body was carried to a well about 15 or 20 feet away.
The gunny bag was then opened and the head severed from the trunk.
The story as given by the approver then proceeds that Peiris told Augustine and Albert that George was drinking heavily, was wasting his money and was creating lot of trouble.
A pit was made in the earth thrown up by the well.
The shoes and socks were deposited in a rock nearby and the clothes were brought to the house of David where they were burnt.
The matter was reported to the patel who informed the police.
His clothes were taken off and put into a bundle together with the shoes.
The skull in its wrapping of cloth was cast into the well after it had been weighted with stones.
Albert, however, companyld number be traced and the Magistrate proceeded against the other accused and companymitted them to the Sessions on August 4, 1952.
On July 24, 1951, the Police submitted the charge sheet against all the three accused and Albert.
On the 8th January, Peiris ran away from the bail to Bombay where he was arrested on March 20, 1951.
George after moving into the house at Bijey took to excessive drinking.
Georges immoderate drinking upset Peiris who became nervous that George might number betray him.
Ghulam Hasan, J. This appeal is brought by special leave against the appellate Judgment and order dated July 31, 1953, of the Madras High Court, upholding the companyviction and sentence of death of the appellant under Section 120 B, read with Section 302 Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Sessions Judge, South Kanara, on November 29, 1952.
The two became unduly familiar and companyducted themselves as if they were husband and wife.
George was murdered on December, 20, 1950, at Kuthethur in Mangalore Taluk at about 10 P. M. There was also a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the disappearance of the evidence of murder.
The Sessions Judge of South Kanara, who tried the case, companyvicted the appellant under Section 120 B, read with Section 302 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death.
He posed as a big diamond merchant and a prosperous business man who had numerous companytacts with Maharajas and other big people as his clients.
They became intimate friends.
He was brought to Mangalore and kept in the Sub Jail but he escaped from there in August 1951.
