Happell, J - (1.) The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly of the murder of one Baliah Nadar on 13 of March last, at the village of Attankarai and has been sentenced to death.
(2.) The deceased Baliah Nadar was married to a woman named Chellammal. The evidence is that this woman was not faithful to him, and that she was on terms of intimacy with a certain Chinna Chelliah Nadar. The accused was this man's elder brother. On the 13 of March, Chellammal and P.W. 6 went in the evening to the river in the neighbourhood of the village for water. Chellammal put her pot down, crossed the river and did not return. P.W. 6 on going back to the village informed Baliah Nadar's father (P.W. 5) of this and P.W. 5 sent Baliah Nadar to search for her. Neither Baliah Nadar nor Chellammal returned and inquiries made by P.W. 5 that night had no result. The next morning he went and made a search in the neighbourhood of the river and found marks of blood near a pit by the side of a brick-kiln. He reported this to the Village Munsif and the Village Munsif sent a report to the Police. Investigation of the case was started on the 15 and that afternoon the accused was arrested.. According to the evidence of the Sub- Inspector of Police, who arrested him and of the Village Munsif (P.W. 7) and two other witnesses (P. Ws. 11 and 12), the accused after his arrest said that he would show them where he had buried the body of Baliah Nadar, where he had hidden some pambadams (ear-rings) given to him by Chellammal and where he had hidden the aruval with which he had killed Baliah Nadar and the cloth which he was wearing when he killed him. On that, according to the evidence of these witnesses, he did show them the place where the body was hidden. He gave them the ear-rings and he showed them where the aruval?was hidden in his sister's garden and handed him the cloth which was hanging on a clothes line in his own house.
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge did not believe that the body had in fact been discovered as a result of the information given by the accused and we have no doubt that in this opinion he was correct. The Sub-Inspector himself admitted in so many words that, owing to the smell, he was really aware where the body was as early as 12 o clock that day although the accused was not arrested at the earliest until 3 o clock in the afternoon. The evidence against the accused therefore, as far as his alleged statement was concerned, rested on the information which led to the recovery of the pampadams, the cloth and the aruval.;