Ramakrishnan, J. - There were three accused before the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirappalli division in S.C. No. 107 of 1968. Periakkal, accused 1 was charged and convicted of the offence of abduction in order to commit murder under section 364, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused 3 Samiappan, brother’s son of the first accused, was convicted under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to be hinged by neck till he is dead. He was also convicted under section 201, Indian Penal Code, for concealing evidence regarding murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused 2 was acquitted of all the charges. Accused 1 an d 3 have appealed against their conviction and sentence. The sentence of death imposed on accused 3 in also before us for confirmation.

The deceased Rasammal was a Harijan woman. She married Raman P.W. 16 about 10 years prior to the occurrence. Rasammal and her husband fell out, because he refused to get divided from his brother, as desired by her. This quarrel led her to abandon her husband’s roof. She returned to the house of her parents Pichaikaran Moopan and Palayee, P.W. 17 and P.W. 18 respectively, in Valandur village. While Rasammal was in Valandur village, she contracted criminal intimacy with P.W. 5 Ramu, the son of the first accused. P.W. 5 was already married. He was living in Kulitalai. He is a Vellala by caste. When the parents of Rasammal insisted on her returning to her husband’s house, she decided to elope with P.W. 5 Ramu for the purpose of living in some other place of their choosing. They, first of all, went to the house of Sirumbayee P.W. 12. P.W. 12 is the sister of accused 2. P.W. 12 Sirumbayee and her paramour Ramaswami Nadar P.W. 7 were living in a coconut tope near Karur. The day of their visit has been identified by the witness as the day after the Thai Poosam, which would correspond to 12th February, 1968. When the caste of Rasammal was discovered as Harijan, P.W. 12 did not like Rasammal’s continuing to stay with her. Thereupon, P.W. 5 and Rasammal went to Karur town to live. With some difficulty, they were able to take on rent a small house in Karur from P.W. 11 on a monthly rent which was paid to P.W. 11 by P.W. 5. At Karur, Rasammal purchased certain house-hold-vessels M.O. 8 series from the shop of Mancharan P.W. 15. After having settled down in this manner, P.W. 5 appears to have left for Kulitalai the next day, leaving Rasammal in Karur itself.

During the visit of P.W. 5 and the deceased to the house of Sirumbayee and Ramaswami Nadar and also during their arrangements to obtain a house in Karur, accused 2 Malaikolundu was present with them. Apparently, he did not object to the arrangements which the couple were making for their residence at Karur. But after leaving them, accused 2 appears to have informed accused 1 about what was going on between P.W. 5 and Rasammal. Accused 1 appears to have resented her son eloping with a Harijan woman. She is alleged to have met her daughter P.W. 12 four days after the latter had seen P.W. 5 and the deceased and taken her to task for harbouring the deceased. She is also alleged to have asked P.W. 12 as to why she did not do away with her (Rasammal) and bury her since she was spoiling her son. This conversation was overheared by P.W. 8 Mookan alias Kuppuswami, who warned accused 1 that, if anything untoward happened to Rasammal, he would be the first to disclose it.

Thereafter, accused 1 came to the house of P.W. 11. P.W. 11 has deposed that on the same day Rasammal took leave of her and left her house in the company of accused 1. When questioned, Rasammal told P.W. 11 that accused 1 was her mother-in-law and that she was going to her husaband’s place after vacating the house. The next day, P.W. 5 went to the house and when he questioned P.W. 11 about Rasammal, she told, him that his mother had taken her away.

The next evidence we have in this case is that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document