Provisions of Section 27 offends Article 16 of the Constitution.

This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge of Kanyakumari in Sessions Case; No. 1 of 1959.

The facts of this case are within a brief compass. It is common ground that there have been bitter ill-feelings between the accused Krishna Pillai and the deceased Velu Nadar over the leasing and enjoyment of palmyrah trees standing on the southern plot of Chudukattuvilai and therefore we need not reset the details of this ill-feeling set out by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his judgment.

On 17th November, 1958, at about 5 p.m., according to P.W. 1, son of the deceased, himself and the deceased as usual left their house for tapping cocoanut trees Then at about 8 p.m. when P.W.1 was climbing trees in the garden adjoining the Chudukattuvilai, known as Arappuravilakam, the deceased was climbing the trees in the southern half of Chudukattuvilai. Then P.W.1 heard an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the accused. How the altercation arose was in this wise.

The deceased was on the top of the tree and the accused questioned him as to who was on the top of the tree and the deceased announced his identity. Then the accused interrogated him as to with whose permission he was climbing the trees The deceased replied that he need not ask for anybody’s permission as he (deceased) was pattomdar. The accused then stated that if he wanted to exercise his rights as pattomdar, he must pay the pattom to him (accused). The deceased stated that he had paid portion of the pattom due for that year and has also paid the advance and therefore he would pay the pattom only from next year onwards The accused persisted that unless he was paid, the deceased could not climb the trees in that garden. In the course of this altercation P.W.1 heard the deceased cry that the accused had stabbed him. P.Ws.3,4,7 and 8, who were in the vicinity hearing this galatta came there. Meanwhile P.W.1 got down from the tree on hearing the hot exchange of words. When P.W.1 was 150 feet away from the scene he heard the alarm of his father that the accused had stabbed him. P.W.1 then saw the accused running with the dagger M.O.5 in his hand towards Melavilai On P.W.1 obstructing the accused and asking him why he stabbed his father, the accused brandished the dagger saying that P.W.1 would also meet with the same fate as his father. Therefore, P.W.1 got frightened and went behind a palmyrah tree The accused ran towards his wife’s house i.e., P.W.5. This was witnessed by P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.8 noticed only the accused running towards his wife’s house. P.W.7 who was climbing the trees in the adjoining Kattuvilai came there on hearing the cries and saw the injured man being lifted by his son (P.W.1) and held close to his chest. P.W.6, the wife of the deceased, and her daughters (not examined) came to the scene. Then the injured man was taken to his house and before he could be sent to the hospital, he died. Information of this occurrence had been given at the Arumana out-post and the Tiruvattar Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of the Tiruvattam Police Station investigated the case and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.2 conducted the autopsy and found a stab injury near the neck which, in his opinion, was necessarily fatal and could be caused by a weapon like M.O.5 at the time and in the manner mentioned by the prosecution. The accused was looked for but he was absconding. He was arrested by P.W.10 at Tiruvandrum at 7-30 p.m. on 21st November, 1958 and on the information given by him M.O. 5 was recovered on 24th November, .958, from the top of a beam in the shop of D.W.3 Ramakrishnan and the seizure was duly recorded under a mahazar Exhibit P-6.

The accused stated that his wife and her children were in possession of the properties in pursuance of a partition deed, even from the date of partiton In spite of the deceased having agreed, in the presence of his father-in-law, to give sweet to