MOLAGAN ALIAS SAME GOUNDAN Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1952-4-37
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 04,1952

Molagan Alias Same Goundan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) (Cr. Ap. No. 363 of 1951): The first appellant (A. 1) is a widow aged over 45. She and her two younger brothers (A. 2 and A. 3) have been found guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. of the murder of one Srinivasa Asari, who was hacked with an aruval in several places in their village street at about 2 p.m. on the 6th of November 1950. A sister of the appellants, one Chinnammal (A. 4) was also charged with this murder but acquitted.
(2.) THE case is rather remarkable as this widow (A. l), at her sessions trial, took full responsibility for cutting Srinivasa Asari with a bill -hook (M. O. 1). She appeared with this blood stained weapon at the Dharmapuri Police station 20 miles away, at 10 a.m. the following morning, where she made a statement and surrendered herself. At Dharmapuri before she appeared at the police station, she went at 8 a.m. to the house of a Brahmin lady (P. W. 4). whom there is no reason to disbelieve. She knew A. 1 very well as she used to do cooly work in her house and other houses for several years when she was in Elumichenpatti, her native village. According to P. W. 4, A. 1 seemed very upset and told her that she had killed the man, who had murdered the husband and son of her younger sister A. 4. The Sub -Inspector enquired P. W. 4 the following day. In the meantime, Srinivasa Asari's wife (P. W. 1) made a complaint Ex. P. 1 to the village Magistrate (P. W. 3) who lived only 70 yards from the scene of murder. That was to the effect that at about 2 p.m. her husband went from their house into the street and that, immediately after he left, she heard cries and on rushing up, she found A. l holding her husband down by his head, while A. 2 and A. 3 cut him several times with a bill -hook. When she raised an alarm, they threatened to cut her also. P. W. 3 was sitting on his pial when, according to him, P. W. 1 came there weeping and told him about the offence. There is no reference in Ex. P. 1 to A. -1.
(3.) THE prosecution case against A. 1 to A. 4 rested entirely on the evidence of P. W. 1 and another eye -witness (P. W. 2) a ten -year old boy, who claims to have been by himself in his father's sundry shop and to have witnessed the tragedy. According to him, A. 1 suddenly came behind the deceased and cut him with this billhook on the left shoulder. Then A. 2, came running, took M. O. l and cut him on the head and right shoulder. Then A. 3 came from the house of A. 4, took the bill -hook from A. 2 and cut deceased on his neck and again on the abdomen. Then last came A. 4 running from her house saying "life is not yet extinct, give two more blows." P. W. 1 says when she rushed out she saw A. 1 holding the deceased by his tuft and bending his head backwards, that A. 2 took the bill -hook and cut the deceased on the head and on the right shoulder. Then A. 3 took the bill -hook and cut the deceased twice on the neck and then last A. 4 came running from her house exhorting to give two more cuts. Thereupon, A. 3 rut the deceased on the abdomen after he fell down. Then, according to her, A. 1 took the aruval from A. 3 and all went away. This witness explains her omission to say anything about A. 4 in Ex. P. 1 as being due in confusion and distress.;


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