MARAGATHAM Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
LAWS(MAD)-1959-10-1
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on October 14,1959

MARAGATHAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R. V. SCOFIELD [REFERRED TO]
R. V. HIGGINS [REFERRED TO]
R. V. MACPHERSON [REFERRED TO]
R V. E. CHEESEMAN [REFERRED TO]
R. V. RING [REFERRED TO]
R. V. FLYNN [REFERRED TO]
R V. MORAN [REFERRED TO]
VASUDEO BALWANT V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
AMVASA NADAN V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
GARDNER V. AKEROYD [REFERRED TO]
R.V.LINNEKER [REFERRED TO]
R. V. WHYBROW [REFERRED TO]
R. V. MISKELL [REFERRED TO]
R. V. OSBORN [REFERRED TO]
KING VS. TUSTIPADA MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
JAIN LAL ALIAS JAINATH VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT DUBE VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SANJEEV NANDA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-151] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Anantanarayanan, J. - (1.)These are connected criminal appeals by Velu (accused No. 1) and Maragatham alias Lakshmi (accused No. 2) in Sessions case No. 8 of 1959 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of Vellore. The two accused, who are husband and wife, having been convicted of the murder of their female infant. Rani, aged about 1-1/2 months under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in each case. . They were further convicted of the offence of attempt to commit suicide (S. 309 I.P.C.) and each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.)The facts are simple and tragic, and not in dispute. The two accused were starving for about ten days previous to this offence, and could find neither work nor any one to give them food. They determined to put an end to their lives and also to put an end to the life of their female infant. Rani, probably feeling that none could look to the child after them. On 7-1-1959 at about 5-30 a.m. they proceeded to a well in their village, Narayanakuppam, and jumped into it, carrying the female infant. The evidence makes it clear that they had tied themselves together with a rope, before jumping into this well.
(3.)Rajagopal (P.W. 1) was passing that way, and heard a sound from the well, and peeped into it. He saw the two accused inside the well, apparently spasmodically struggling for life. He jumped into the well, and, while, in the water, was able to get at the rope that had bound these unfortunate people together. He pulled the rope, and swam towards the steps leading into the well. By this means he was able to drag both accused 1 and 2 towards the steps. The wife (accused 2) was somewhat unconscious, and P.W. 1 had to carry her out of the well. The husband (accused 1) was sufficiently restored to be able to climb up the steps. He (P.W. 1) questioned accused I who told him that, finding no work and unable to bear the pangs of hunger, both the accused had determined to put an end to their lives, and jumped into the well with the child. P. W. 1 states; "He (A-1) also told me that they placed their child in their hands, jumped into the well, and in that act the child fell into the well." This extra-judicial confession is of significance in determining the precise nature of the offences committed by the two accused.


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