SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Happell, J.
In Re: Peria Chelliah Nadar
Versus
Decided On : 17.11.1941

Admissibility of evidence and sufficiency of corroboration are crucial in establishing guilt in a criminal case.

Headnote:

Murder - Evidence Act - Sections 32, 35 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of the murder of Baliah Nadar. The evidence included the discovery of the body and items allegedly connected to the crime based on the accused's statement, as well as a statement made by the deceased's wife, Chellammal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence, including the accused's statement and the deceased's wife's statement, was not admissible and did not sufficiently corroborate the accused's involvement in the murder.

Issues: Admissibility of evidence, sufficiency of corroboration

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased's wife's statement was not admissible under Sections 32 and 35 of the Evidence Act, and the accused's statement alone was not sufficient to convict him.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was directed to be set at liberty.

JUDGMENT

Happell, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly of the murder of one Baliah Nadar on 13th 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 mans elder brother. On the 13th 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 Nadars 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 15th 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 sisters 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 oclock that day although the accused was not arrested at the earliest until 3 oclock 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.

4. This, however, was not the whole of the evidence which was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as admissible against the accused. At about midday on the 14th, Chellammal appeared at her uncles house at the village of Mettupatti and told him what had happened. Her uncle P.W. 10, then took her to Attankarai where she had lived with the deceased and she then made the same statement to her father-in-law (P.W. 5). The Village Munsif was sent for and she made a statement to him which he recorded in writing. This statement was admitted as Ex. H and in it Chellammal stated that her husband on the evening of the 13th had found her on the other side of the river with the accused Peria Chelliah Nadar, that a quarrel had ensued between the accused and her husband, and that the accused had cut her husband in the abdomen with an aruval. Chellammal the same evening committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that her statement was admissible under Sections 32 and 35 of the Evidence Act. There can be no question that the statement was not admissible and the learned Public Prosecutor has not supported the view of the Sessions Judge. It is not admissible under Section 32, because the death of Chellammal did not come into question in the Sessions case, and it is not admissible under Section 35 because this statement recorded by the Village Munsif and attested by two witnesses is clearly n


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top