SELVERAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and confirmed by the High Court of Madras.

(2.) One Natesan and his wife Ranganayaki, to whom we shall, for the sake of convenience, refer as the deceased, were living together in a house situate at Mutthu Undal Lane in Nammakkal. Natesan was a tailor by profession and he had his tailoring shop in Sannadhi Street about a furlong away from his house. He had also a small petty shop adjoining his House on the western side which was looked after by the deceased. The appellant, who is the son of the maternal uncle of Natesan was regularly taking his meals with Natesan since some time before the date of the incident, as he was unmarried and had no employment at the relevant time. According to the prosecution, about three months prior to the date of the occurrence, the appellant made advances to the deceased and wanted to satisfy his lust by sexual intercourse with her, but she spurned him and drove him out of the house, Natesan was not then in the house and when he came back at night, the deceased complained to him about the improper conduct of the appellant, on which Natesan chastised the appellant on the next day.

(3.) On 11th March, 1974 at about 8.15 p.m. Natesan was in his tailoring shop. He had an apprentice by the name of Manisekaran. He sent Manisekaran to his house with some edibles for his children. Manisekaran went to the house of Natesan and finding the deceased in the petty shop, he handed over the edibles to her and she tookthe edibles and went into the house. Natesan left his tailoring shop at about 8.30 p.m. and reached the house at about 9 p.m. Manisekaran was at that time standing in front of the petty shop and Natesan also stopped there and started talking to Manisekaran. When Natesan was talking to Manisekaran, he heard a noise from inside the house and he immediately rushed into the house. On entering the house, he saw the appellant standing with a knife in his right hand and asking the deceased to have sexual intercourse with her and threatening her that if she refused, he would kill her. The deceased defiantly stated that she would refuse to submit to him even if she were to die. Natesan, on seeing this shouted to the appellant "chandal:this is an atrocity." The appellant thereupon threatened that he would stab Natesan also, if he came near him. The appellant then tried to stab the deceased with the knife and in her effort to ward off the attack, she received three stab wounds on her left hand forearm. Natesan did not take any steps to save the deceased, but, to use his own words "stood a little bit away." The appellant then stabbed the deceased twice on the left side and she fell down crying 'ayyo Amma' with her face down wards. Even after she fell down, the appellant again stabbed her thrice on her back and then left the house. In the mean time, Manisekaran had also come inside the house on hearing the noise and he also witnessed the stabbing of the deceased by the appellant. When the appellant was running away after stabbing the deceased, he was seen by three persons, namely, Angamuthu, Madhavan and Sunderarajan, who were sitting at Mariamman Temple situate in the same street on which the petty shop was situate. When they saw the appellant running with a knife in his hand, they questioned him and he replied stating that he had stabbed the wife of Natesan tailor and wreaked vengeance. Angamuthu, Madhavan and Sunderarajan thereupon proceeded to the house of Natesan and saw the deceased lying with her legs inside the house and her head and body in the verandah. They asked Natesan as to why he was standing quietly when the appellant was running away stating that he had stabbed Natesan's wife. Natesan narrated to them the details of the incident and then a taxi was brought and Natesan, Manisekaran and Angamuthu placed the deceased in the taxi for taking her to the hospital. However, on the way, the deceased died and so Natesan asked Manisekaran and Angamuthu to take the deceased to the hospital and he proceeded to the police station to lodge the first information report. Soon after the lodging of the first information report, the appellant, according to the prosecution, presented himself at the police station with the knife and the police arrested him and seized the knife as also the shirt and pant which he was wearing. The knife was seized under Mazahar Ex. P-10 and the pant and shirt under Mazahar Ex. P-11. These two Mazahars were attested by A. Saleem and Rajarathnam. The appellant was thereafter chargesheeted for the offence of murdering the deceased and he was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras and the case was also referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant. Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.