Decided on April 29,1970

In Re: Kandhapadayachi Alias Kandaswami Appellant
STATE Respondents


K.S.VENKATARAMAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot, by which he convicted the appellant herein, Kanda Padayachi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Natesa Padayachi, by delivering cuts on him, on the night of 10th July, 1969, (Thursday) in Valayamadevi Village, and sentenced him to the extreme penalty of the law, subject to confirmation by this Court.
(2.) NATESA Padayachi (deceased) and his wife Meenakshi (P.W. 1) were residing originally in Neyveli Road, just north of the house of the appellant. The appellant's wife died three years before, and he had no children. The appellant developed illicit intimacy with P.W. 1 about seven months prior to the occurrence. One afternoon, about four months prior to the occurrence, the children of Natesa Padayachi were not in the house. Natesa Padayachi happened to return home earlier and discovered his wife and the appellant in a compromising position. Natesa Padayachi quarrelled with the appellant and warned him and P.W. 1. The appellant retorted saying that Natesa Padayachi should control his wife. P.W. 5 who happened to pass along that way, was a witness to this. He pacified the appellant saying that he should not quarrel with Natesa Padayachi, who was an elderly person.
(3.) IN order to prevent the appellant visiting P.W. 1, Natesa Padayachi, shifted his residence to the northern portion of a chatram belonging to his master, P.W. 6 : Natesa Padayachi was a driver in the 1 rice -mill belonging to P.W. 6 and his father Sundaralingam Pillai. P.W. 1 states that the appellant did not thereafter have sexual connection with her. About one and a half months prior to the occurrence, the appellant complained to Govindaraju (P.W. 2) that he had presented a saree, jacket and money to P.W. 1 and that, when he wanted back those articles ,Natesa Padayachi was quarrelling with him. The appellant sought the intervention of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 spoke to Natesa Padayachi about it, but Natesa Padayachi stated that it was not proper on the part of P.W. 2 to intervene. P.W. 2 informed the appellant of what happened. The appellant replied that he would himself deal with the matter. He said this in anger.;

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