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

1930 Supreme(Mad) 208

A FIELD
In Re: Krishnama Naicken And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The two appellants, the 1st and the 2nd accused in the Court below, were charged with the murder of Krishnama Naicken early in the morning of the 2nd April, 1930, at a place called Peedampalli. They were both convicted of the offence and the 1st appellant was sentenced to death and the 2nd appellant to transportation for life. [After narrating the facts of the case their Lordships proceeded]

2. Reference has been made to the statement of the deceased recorded by the Sub-Assistant Surgeon, P.W. 1. That is Ex. B. It is very brief and is as follows:

One Krishnama Naicken, son of Velappa Naicken of Peedampalli assisted by his brother-in-law, assaulted me with koduval, stick, etc., this early morning at about 4-30 a.m. I was decoyed by accused Krishnama Naickens wife on plea of helping her from being brutally assaulted by her husband. I, believing this to be true, went to a pallam near Nilama Naickens garden. The accuseds brother-in-law caught hold of my tuft and the accused cut me with a koduval on my head. I fell down and both assaulted me with koduval and stick. I cried out and then the neighbours came and took me to this dispensary. The















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top