The standard of corroboration required for a retracted confession is lower than that required for the evidence of an accomplice.

Judgment

GOVINDA MENON, J. : Before the Additional Judge of the Court of Sessions of Coimbatore Division there were four accused, of whom the first accused Subramania Goundan has now appealed to this Court against the confirmation by the High Court of Madras of the conviction and sentence by the trial Court, by which, on charges Nos. 1 and 2, he was sentenced to death, and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on charge No. 3. Special leave to appeal was granted by order of this Court, dated the 6th of May, 1957. Along with the appellant were tried three others, of whom the second accused (Marappa Goundan) was his father. The third accused (Karuppa) was the grandson of the second accused s paternal uncle, while the fourth accused (Iyyavu) was an agnate in the fourth degree of the second accused. It is thus seen that all the accused were related to each other.

2. The learned Sessions Judge framed four charges of which the first was against the appellant, that he on June 6, 1956, at night in the village of Vengakalpalayam, committed the murder of Marappa Goundan by cutting him with an aruval; while the second charge was that at about the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction, he committed the murder of Muthu Goundan by stabbing him with a spear. The third count of the charge was against the first and the second accused that they conjointly committed the offence of attempt to murder by stabbing one Munia Goundan with a spear and knife, and the last count of the charge was against accused Nos. 3 and 4 that they abetted the commission of the offence of attempt of murder of Munia Goundan by being present on the scene. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but convicted and sentenced the appellant before us in the manner stated above.

3. The village, where the offences were committed, was faction-ridden in which the appellant, his father and others took one side, whereas the two deceased individuals, along with Munia Goundan and others, formed the leaders of the rival faction. It was also stated that the appellant s father was the leading man of the village, having been assigned that dignity by the consent of the villagers.

4. The prosecution case is that the dignity of the appellant s family had been offended by certain actions of the rival party and it was apprehended by the appellant s father that his prestige and influence, as the chief-man of the village, were being gradually undermined and usurped by the rival group. About three days prior to the occurrence, which took place on the night between the 6th and the 7th of June, 1956, Munia Goundan is said to have stated to the hearing of the appellant that he (Munia Goundan) would wipe out the appellant s father and his partisans, and if that were not possible, in a spirit of humiliation, Munia Goundan would shave off his moustache. It is further alleged that the two deceased individuals also proclaimed words to that effect.

5. Angered at this threat of extermination of his family and inflamed by the enmity due to the faction that had already existed, the appellant, according to the prosecution, having armed himself with an aruval (a sickle) a spear and a knife left his house on the night of the 6th and 7th June, 1956, proceeded to a place known as Chettithottam where the deceased Marappa Goundan was sleeping in his field-shed, and cut him on the neck with the aruval, and inflicted other injuries on him before leaving the place. Thereafter, while on his way to the house of Munia Goundan to do away with him, the appellant met the deceased Muthu Goundan who was coming in the opposite direction and thinking that Muthu Goundan would catch him, inflicted a stab wound on Muthu Goundan. After this the appellant went to the house of Munia Goundan (P. W. 5) and stabbed him also. Not being content with committing these crimes, he set fire to the shed of Sennimalia Goundan (P. W. 4- who was also a partisan of the rival faction) which