Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J

[1] The appellant, Kandaswami Gounder, has been found guilty under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of one Tholkkaran Ramaswaim Gounder and sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore division. The deceased was running a mutton shop. He used to slaughter goats in his shop and send the skins to Pollachi. He was also manufacturing illicit arrack and selling it. The appellant along with P. W. 3 and a brother-in-law of the appellant and a few others used to visit the house of the deceased, eat mutton there and take illicit arrack sold by the deceased.

The deceased used to carry the illicit arrack manufactured by him and sell the same in the village of Anikkadavu. The appellant was very much dissatisfied with the deceased for the reason that the deceased had spoiled the appellant's brother-in-law one Palaniswami by making him drink illicit arrack and go after the women. Two months prior to the occurrence, which is said to have taken place on 30th March 1956, the appellant had quarrelled with the deceased on this very same ground, arid since then both of them were not on talking terms.

As a result of the influence of the deceased on the brother-in-law of the appellant viz., Palaniswami, the appellant's sister could not live with her husband and the appellant was smarting under the misfortune that had befallen his sister, whose life he felt had become ruined. It also transpires that the deceased was responsible for causing obstruction in the settlement of the marriage of the appellant's younger brother by giving information to the bride's party who came from Pollachi, that the girl married to him would have to cook for a big family, as a consequence of which the arrangement seems to have broken up and the appellant was put to the necessity of finding another girl in Doddanpatti for his younger brother.

[2] On the date of the occurrence, that is, 30th March 1956, at about lamp lighting time, the deceased took along with him to the village of Anikkavadu three bottles of illicit arrack in a gunny bag M. O. 1. Of three bottles, M. O. 2 is one which is intact and the other two bottles having been broken in the course of the occurrence, their broken pieces are M. O. 3 series. The deceased also carried a torch light with him which is M. O. 4. He is said to have also carried with him a sum of Rs. 100 in M. O. 6, a cloth money purse.

The appellant who appears to have sworn to wreak vengeance against the deceased for ruining Palaniswami and preventing him from living with his wife, the sister of the appellant, went to the house of the deceased on the evening of the date of the occurrence and obtained information about the movements of the deceased. It is also stated that the appellant met the deceased that evening and demanded some arrack which the deceased refused to supply him.

[3] Having come to know that the deceased had left for Anikkadavu, the appellant followed the deceased, Before he actually started on his intended errant to finish off the deceased, he called P. W. 12 Sennjappan, a friend of his and induced him to accompany him on the representation that the deceased was going with arrack and that both of them may snatch and go away. P, W. 12 fell into the snare and accompanied him. After passing a distance of a mile, the appellant saw the deceased and flashed a battery light and made sure that he was no other than the deceased.

He ran towards him and pulled out his legs as a result of which the deceased fell down. The appellant stabbed him twice or thrice in his nape with a bichuva M. O. 1. P. W. 12, who did not expect such a tiling to take place, is said to have obstructed the appellant from stabbing the deceased when he got his linger hurt. When the deceased had fallen on the ground, the appellant gave a forcible stab on his abdomen with the bichuva. The result of this stab was that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

The person of the deceased was searched by the a