IN RE: LAKSHMAN Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
In Re: Lakshman
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Appellant, Lakshmanan has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having murdered his father Muthuswamy by the field pumpshed in Panchalam Village between 5 and 6 P.M. on 2nd May, 1970, and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court, The appeal preferred by the appellant and the referred trial as regards the sentence of death are both before us.
(2.) The appellant Lakshmanan is the fourth and the last of the four sons of the deceased Muthuswamy. P.W. 1 Subramaniam is the eldest son of the deceased Muthuswamy. The deceased Muthuswamy and his sons were living together as a joint family. The elder brothers of the appellant have all been married. The family incurred expenses for the marriages and for installing an electric pumpset in the land owned by it. The appellant appears to have undergone operation to sterlise himself without informing the members of his family. Evidently on account of this fact no one was willing to give a girl in marriage to him. The appellant was not in the habit of working regularly in the field and he used to take Rs. 10 or Rs. 15 from home and go away from the family for a short time and return after spending the amount. The appellant used to ask his father to arrange for his marriage and as this was put off on the ground of the existing debts and the incapacity of the appellant to earn his livelihood, there used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased Muthuswamy. These facts are clearly mentioned by P.W. 1 Subramaniam, the elder brother of the appellant. In fact, during his examination under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, in the committal Court and in the Sessions Court, the appellant admitted the fact that there used to be frequent quarrels between him and his father.
(3.) On the morning of 2nd May, 1970, the date of occurrence, the appellant went with his father and elder brother P.W. 1 Subramaniam to work in the field. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 that transplantation of paddy seedlings was being done at that time. The work was over by about 2 P.M. The appellant and the deceased Muthuswamy began to wash the bulls. The deceased, Muthuswamy found fault with the appellant for wasting the water in so washing the bulls and allowing the water to go out of the channel and he appears to have grumbled at the expenses he had to incur for current charges. The appellant was annoyed at his father for finding fault with him and he scolded him saying that he had not arranged for his marriage. The deceased Muthuswamy retorted that no one would give a girl in marriage to the appellant, who had undergone operation to prevent child birth. There was a quarrel between them at that time and the appellant is alleged to have remarked that he would do marriage for his father implying thereby that he would do away with him and do the funeral ceremony. P.W. 1 Subramaniam separated both the appellant and his father and prevented further quarrel. This is the motive for the occurrences in the case.
[After discussing the evidence in Paras. 4 to 10 His Lordship proceeded :.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.