In Re : Perumal Thevar

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—Appellant, Peramal Thevar, seeks to appeal against his conviction for an offence u/s 302 I.P.C. for committing the murders of his wife Sudalalvadivu and his mother-in-law Gotnathl Ammal. There is also the conviction of the Appellant for an offence v. u/s 309 I.C. against which he seeks to appeal.

The accused belongs to A. Swarkarkalam. The mother, Gomathi Ammal and her daughter, Sudalalvadivu, belonged to Karungslam. Sadalaivadivu was married to the accused. P.W. 1 Esakki Ammal and P.W. 2 Gomathi Ammal are the neighbours of the two deceased. After marriage Sudalaivadivu often used to frequent her mother''s house as a result of her quarrel with the accused. A male called was born to the wife of the accused. Sudalaivadivu returned to the mother''s house and (sic)de a complaint against the accused Subsequently, the wife of the accused went to the house of the accused at Alwarkarkulam. But after some time, she returned to her mother''s house with the child. About three days prior to the occurrence, the accused came to the house of his mother-in-law and took away the child from his wife Sudalalvadivu. This time the wife did not go to bring back her son. These facts are amply graved by the evidence of P.W.l.

Like P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.W. 3 Sankaralingam. belongs to Kareagulam On 25th March 1969 (Tuesday at about 7-30 a.m.P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Periakulam tank for the purpose of sowing cucumber and black gram serde in the task, which was dry then. At (sic) both the (sic)ther and daughter (G(sic) Ammal and Sudalalvadivu) came there for the purpose of sowing seeds on the (sic) side of the tank P.Ws. 1 and 2 were actually sewing seeds 50 feet from the place where P.Ws. 1 and 2 were showing. They (sic) till about 10.30 a.m. At (sic) the accused came with a pair of chapter M.O. 1 series) in his hands as it was not possible for him to walk with the chappals in that tank. The accused ease there find the deceased Gomathi Anmal and the deceased Sadalaivadivu sawing steds in a beading posture facing east. He seared Gomathi Ammal, his mother-in-law, dropped M.O. 1 series and took eat the atuuval M.O. 2 from his (sic) and sat on the back of his mother-in-law Gomathi Animal with M.O. 2, She stood up. The accused aimed a cut on her with M.O. 2. She warded off the cut with her right hand. The cut fell on her right palm and severed a portion of that palm along with four fingers and THE severed portion down. Farmer, the accused caton her neck and head repeatedly with M.O. 2. As a result of these cats, she felt down and died immediately.

In the meantime, P.W. 1 and 2 and the accused''s wife Sudalalvadivu raised alarm and requested the accused not to cut his mother-in-law Gamathi Ammal. But he did not care for their appeal. Then his wife Sudalalvadivu Beared her mother, after she fell down. The accused cut on her left hand with M.O. 2. The said cat severed three of her fingers in her left hand. Again the accuses cut on her head and neck repeatedly with M.O. 3. Sudalaivadivu fell down dead.

X X X

[The discussion of facts and (sic) is omitted-Ed.]

We have no hesitation in held long (sic) the accused committed the (sic) his mother-in -law and wife Gomathi Anmal and Sudalaivadivu (sic) on the basis the acceptance of the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3.

Before parting with this case, are (sic)oud to observe very baseless and flyman i.e. sons given by the trial Judge for his awarding the sentence of imprisons for life in ilea of the capital punishment .The first reason he says is that the accused has go a male child without his mother. It was the accused that deprived the male child of the prosecution of mother by murdering her and we are enable to see any reason or sense in stating that the accused has got a male child without his mother. The learned trial Judge appears to have suffered the accused to reap the (sic) of his own crime by mentioning this as a ground for giving the lesser sentence. he further states, the child has so be protected and maintained. Commonsense would dictate that in the case of an infant babe the mother would be a natural person Ministering to its needs by nursing, protecting any rearing her own babe. It is the brutal act of the accused thoroughly unprovoked the date of the occurrence.

Which resulted in the deprivation of the child of the cars of the mother. We are unable to see any other "peculiar circumstances of the case." We are unable to appreciate the reasons or the logic gives by the learned trial Judge for saying that the accused does act deserve the capital punishment far the offences committed by him u/s 302 I.P.C . for two gramme and grisly murders. Time and again we have come across in this Court various judgment where death sentence is the most appropriate sentence, but same of the Sessions Judges shy away from awarding the capital punishment. This is a case where two successive brutal murders have been committed without any provocation whatever. The accused goes from the neighbouring village of Alwarkarkulam to the village of Karungulam fully armea with (sic) and without alerting the two intended victims, fee indulges in cruel and merciless cutting until they fell down dead. If this case wherein two successive murders have been committed not call for a capital punishment, (sic) to the trial Judge, we are unable to (sic) and any other variety of cases meriting SUCH punishment. Courts must remember it is their tiered duty to balance the late rests of the State with the interests of the accused in administering justice and in awarding proper sad adequate settees. Court (sic)ris should not permit themselves to be swayed by sloppy, maudlin sentimentality in (sic) to the (sic) of lesser sentences. Court (sic) not astute in awarding capital punishments whenever such a sentence is called for in the (sic) appropriate and justifiable (sic) In this case, we are of the view that the trial Judge has erred grievously in awarding the lesser sentence.

The conviction and sentences are confirmed and the criminal appeal in dismissed.