Decided on September 23,1970

MUNUSAMI Appellant


- (1.) THIS is an appeal by one Munuswamy against his conviction and sentence for offences under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Nagammal, by throttling her after relieving her of a cloth-pouch containing Rs. 6.
(2.) IN brief, the skeletal outline of the prosecution case is spoken to by P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. P. W. 1 is the son of Nagammal (deceased ). P. W. 2 is Nagammal (deceased ). P. Ws. 3 and 4 were working in the neighbouring fields near the scene of occurrence. P. W. 5 is the husband of P. W. 2 and the son-in-law of Nagammal (deceased ).
(3.) P. WS. 1. 2. 5. and Nagammal the deceased, were living together in the field shed of P. W. 5 at Chikkampatti. the appellant is the farm servant of one Natesan, son of P. W. 5. by his first wife, who is living away, separate from his father. On 18th may, 1969, P. W. 5 left Chikkampatti for Giddampatti Thanda for the purpose of participating in a panchayat. Prior to his departure for the panchayat, P. W. 5 asked P. W. 1 to sow gingelly seeds in his land and also plough the same. P. W. 1 left for the field some 150 yards away from the field shed for sowing and ploughing the land. At about 2-30 p. m. P. W. 1 returned to the field hut for taking water. As he neared the field hut, he saw his mother Nagammal lying on the ground on her back, with the appellant sitting on her, throttling her neck with his hands and biting her face and with his hands and biting her face and shoulder. he raised a hue and cry and rushed to the appellant. P. W. 2 returned on hearing the cries of P. W. 1 in apprehending the appellant and tying him to a tree nearby. Nagammal, the deceased, was questioned and she told them that the appellant snatched away the pouch containing some money, when she reused to give him some change, and that when she came out to the kalam to call for aid and help, the appellant pushed her down and throttled her. The appellant was also questioned and he confessed, having committed the office. Not merely that. The appellant also handed over back the pouch containing some money, some betel nuts and a chunnambu dabba, M. Os. 1 to 4. By then, P. W. 3 Parvathi and P. W. 4. By then, P. W. 3 Parvathi and P. W. 4 Chinna Iyathan came to the scene of occurrence. They were also told about the occurrence by Nagammal, the deceased. On their questioning the appellant, he again confessed, having committed the offence. Subsequently Natesan and others came to the scene of occurrence. P. W. 1 went to Kondagampatti to make a report to the village munsif but the village munsif was not available. Night set in. Only on the next morning, p. W. 1 took the appellant and Nagammal to Kadathur police station, by making the journey to Bommidi by cart and thereafter by bus. Ultimately he gave the report, Ext. P. 1, at 3-15 p. m. on 19th May, 1969. Even when the report was unnecessary for us to notice the other features of the prosecution case, as spoken to by the other witnesses, in vie of the question to be determined solely on the medical testimony in this case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.