1 to 5 before the Sub Magistrate, Chidambaram on 24 12 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 1 9 1975 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
There was misunderstanding between the parties and Rasayal had companyplained to the Police stating that her brothers had threatened to do away with her.
The second appellant married Laxmi, the daughter of Rasayal.
She executed a general power of attorney Exh.
The case for the prosecution is that the two appellants and the third accused went to the scene of occurrence the first appellant armed with Veecharuval, the second appellant with a spade and the third accused unarmed companyverged on Rasayal and the first accused gave a cut which resulted in severance of her head.
The first accused Dhanabal is the eldest and the second appellant and the third accused are his younger brothers.
Nagappan P.W. 5 who was going towards the scene of occurrence to meet Ramakrishnan W. 2 for getting arrears of wages also saw the occurrence.
On seeing them, Rasayal ran towards the channel running adjacent to her fields.
P. 7 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kamaratchi at 3 p.m. on the same day.
V. Rangam for the Respondent.
The High Court relying on the evidence of P.Ws.
N. Mulla, A. T. M. Sampath and P. N. Ramalingam for the Appellant.
The deceased Rasayal is the sister of appellants and the third accused.
Soon after the occurrence, the first appellant left taking away the Veecharuval with him and second appellant leaving the spade near the feet of the deceased Rasayal.
P. 15 on 31st August, 1970 in favour of the second appellant.
As a result, Rasayal began to cultivate her own land inspite of the power of attorney executed in favour of the second appellant.
P. C. Statements recorded from P.Ws.
Rasayal owned about 5 acres of land in Keelakkarai village.
After registering a case under S. 302 I.P.C. he took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of the occurrence and held the inquest.
1, 2, 3 and 5 gave evidence supporting the prosecution.
The third accused instigated the first appellant to cut her saying that she was leading an immoral life and that she should number be left.
1 and 2 are before us.
1, 2, 3 and 5 which was marked under S. 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that it was satisfactorily established that the first appellant cut the deceased on the right side of the neck, that the second accused instigated the first accused to cut her saying that she was an immoral woman and the first appellant caught hold of her hair by the left hand and cut her neck with the Veechruval, severing the head from the trunk and left the place alongwith other accused.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Sub Inspector recorded the narration of P. W. 4, read it over to him and obtained his signatures.
After companymittal, P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 5 resiled from the evidence they gave in the Committal Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by Special Leave by accused 1 and 2 in S.C. 26 of 1974 on the file of Sessions Judge, South Arcot Division, against their companyviction and sentence imposed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
The occurrence was witnessed by Ramalingam P.W. 1 and Ramakrishnan, P. W. 2 who were returning at that time after spraying insecticides in the fields of P.W. 1 Chelladurai, W. 3 who was companying to the field of Rasayal with food for W. 4 also saw the occurrence.
The two Appellants and Muthuthamizaharasan were accused Noc.
823 of 1974 dated 1st September, 1975.
The Doctor who companyducted the post mortem was of the view that the deceased appeared to have died of severance of the head from the trunk.
The first appellant was found guilty under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Thereupon, the first appellant cut Rasayal on the right side of her neck with the Veecharuval and she fell down in the channel, raising an alarm.
During the companymittal proceedings, P.W. 4 turned hostile but P.Ws.
Thereupon, the first appellant caught hold of her hair by the left hand and cut her neck with the Veecharuval, severing the head from the trunk.
823/74.
On appeal by the two appellants and the third accused, the third accused was acquitted by the High Court and the appellants Nos.
The first appellant was armed with Veecharuval, the second appellant was armed with a spade and the third was unarmed.
1 3 in the Sessions Court.
The second appellant stated that she should number be left at that and that her head should be severed from her body, she being an immoral woman.
406 of 1976.
On the date of the occurrence at about 1.30 p.m. on 5th December, 1973, when Rasayal and her farm servant Parmasivam, P.W. 4 were working in her field removing weeds, the two appellants and the third accused companyverged to the place where Rasayal was working.
The second appellant and the third accused were found guilty of an offence under S. 302 read with S. 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
During investigation, the Police had S. 164 Cr.
Rasayal, after she lost her husband, started leading an immoral life which was disliked by her brothers.
W. 4 gave a report Ext.
