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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Burn, J.
In Re: Mylswami Chetty
Versus
Decided On : 22.02.1938

Reliability of prosecution evidence and admissibility of statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:

Murder - Family Feud - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 162

Fact of the Case:

The appellant is alleged to have shot and killed the father of the bridegroom at a marriage ceremony due to bitter enmity between the two families.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reliable and justified the reliance on their testimony. The court also dismissed the appellant's plea of alibi.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution evidence, the admissibility of certain statements, and the credibility of the witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of prosecution witnesses and dismissed the appellant's plea of alibi. It also addressed the admissibility of statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and the sentence of death, dismissing the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. This is a case of a somewhat unusual kind. The appellant is alleged to have gone to a house where preparations were being made for a marriage at about 1-30 A.M. on the 18th August, 1937, and there to have shot the father of the bridegroom with a revolver and killed him. The learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore has found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.

2. The facts are quite simple. The deceased was the maternal uncle of the appellant and there was bitter enmity between the two branches of the family. It was alleged that about two years ago the appellant was trying to secure for his elder brother the daughter of Sundarammal (P.W. 7) but P.W. 7 rejected this alliance as she disapproved of the appellants family. After that it is said that about six months before this occurrence one Ponnusami who was employed by the deceased wanted to marry the same girl. His offer also was refused and he is said to have left the service of the deceased. After this a marriage was arranged between the daughter of P.W. 7 and Sitarama Chetti (P.W. 6) a son of the deceased. The time of the ceremony was fixed for 8 to 9 A.M. on the 19th August, and according to the prosecution the relations and friends assembled at the house of the deceased on the 18th. The appellant had not received an invitation. In the middle of the night at about 1 A.M. the bridegrooms mother and other relations went to fetch new pots for the marriage from the house of the potter according to mamool. While they were away from the house, the appellant, followed by two others who were not recognised, is said to have come in through the open front door of the house and to have shot Kuppuswami Chetti twice with a revolver. Kuppuswami Chetti was seated in the open yard behind the house. The house is on the Hardinge Market Street in Pollachi. The front gate gives access to a small open yard. Then there is a verandah at either end of which is a small room. From the middle of the verandah the door leads into the front hall. Behind that there is a second hall and behind that the open yard in which Kuppuswami Chetti was said to be seated. The appellant, according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 walked straight in through the gate and through both the halls to the doorway leading into the open yard. At that point he fired two shots at Kuppuswami Chetti one of which entered his left side and penetrated to the heart. Death of course must have been instantaneous. The other struck Kuppuswami Chetti on the right wrist and the bullet came out through the palm. The appellant is then said to have run across the open compound behind the house and to have made his escape by climbing over the compound wall on the eastern side.

3. P.W. 1 is the eldest son of the deceased. He says that he himself, the bridegroom, Sitaraman (P.W. 6), a tailor Hari-chandran (P.W. 5) and Dhandayudha Mudaliar (P.W. 2) were all seated in the front hall when the appellant came in. Nachimuthu a cart driver employed by the deceased, is said to have been sitting on the outer verandah. These five are the witnesses who saw the entrance of the appellant into the house. P.Ws. 5 and 6 did not see the actual shooting. P.W. 5 says that as soon as he saw the appellant with the revolver in his hand he pushed the bridegroom (P.W. 6) into one of the small rooms at the end of the front verandah and bolted the door. These two witnesses therefore merely heard the shots. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 saw the appellant go to the southern door near the hall and saw him fire from there. The evidence of these witnesses has been attacked on various grounds. Here as also apparently in the Sessions Court one of the principal lines of attack was based upon the size of the bullet which the doctor extracted from the body of the deceased. This bullet (M.O. 1) is a large object and the chemical examiner, Madras, to whom it was sent for examination reported (Ex. D-l) that the weapon through which the bullet could have







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