On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence of P.W. 4, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned trial Judge that P.W. 4 and the first accused were on inimical terms for sometime prior to the occurrence, although, they were distantly related to each other.On the date of the occurrence 16th April, 1970 at about 4 P.M. P.W. 4 Palaniandi Servai and one Kandaswamy (not examined) were returning from Kottampatti to their village, Chinnakottampatti.The distance is stated to be about one mile.Malaichamy, the first accused, accused P.W. 4 on the road.He kicked him (P.W. 4) down and attempted to spear him with a vel kambu.P.W. 1 and the deceased Subbiah went to the field house of P.W. 4 to enquire about this incident and on the way Subbiah (P.W. 3) son of Karuppiah was taken along by them.P.Ws. 1 and 3 and the deceased Subbiah found P.W. 4 weeping and after hearing about the details of the assault, the deceased Subbiah told P.W. 4 that he should make a complaint to the Police about the assault.P.W. 4 agreed.P.W. 3, Kannusamy, and deceased Subbiah accompanied P.W. 4 to the Police Station of Kottampatti.They got a complaint (Exhibit P-5) prepared by a local petition-writer at Kottampatti and P.W. 4 presented it at the Police Station before P.W. 10 the Station-Writer of the Police Station, since the SuB-1nspector was not available.They had some coffee at Kottampatti later; they were returning to their village, Chinnakottampatti, at about 2-30 P.M, along the Trichy main road.There is a diversion road branching off from the main road to the village of Chinnakottampatti, and P.W. 4 and Kannusamy parted company from the deceased Subbiah and P.Ws. 1 and 3, who were proceeding on the branch road to their village.This was at about 9 P.M. and there was undoubtedly bright moonlight at that time.It emerges from the recorded evidence that all the five accused as well as.P.Ws. 1 and 3 (the two eye-witnesses) and also P.W. 4 and the deceased Subbiah belong to the same village of Chinnakottampatti.JUDGMENT K.N. Mudaliyar, J.After killing the deceased Subbiah, the five accused returned to the road.P.Ws. 1 and 3 saw them and quietly hastened towards their village.P.W. 1 asked P.W. 3 to go to the village and inform the family of the deceased about the occurrence.P.W. 1 himself left the place to give a report to the Village Munsif, residing at Kottampatti.On the information given by P.W. 3 to the relations of the deceased, they all came crying to the scene of crime, which is about one and a half furlongs away from their house.After recording the said complaint, Exhibit P-1,' P.W. 6 accompanied by P.W. 1 and the Village Vettian, got a petromax light and reached the scene of occurrence.He saw the dead body of the deceased with multiple injuries in the garden of Kaliappan.P.W. 6 prepared the routine reports to the Police and the Magistrate and despatched them through his Vettian at 11 P.M. which were received by P.W. 10 at about 11-50 P.M. Naturally P.W. 6 continued to stay at the scene of occurrence till the arrival of the SuB-1nspector of Police (P.W. 13) on 17th April, 1970 at 10 A.M.P.W. 13 the SuB-1nspector of Police of Kottampatti Police Station was on special bandobust duty at Maduraiin connection with the visit of the Vice-President of India.P.W. 13 received from P.W. 12 an express tapal regarding the crime at about 6 A.M. on 17th April, 1970, when he Was on duty near St. Mary's High School.Dr. Abdul Gafoor Adamsa (P.W. 2) conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Subbiah on 18th April, 1970 at 10-45 A.M. It is unnecessary for us to elaborately describe the multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased as paragraph 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge contains all the details.Suffice it for us to observe that the deceased had received at least eight injuries which were necessarily fatal.The head was virtually severed from the body except a portion of the skin :over the right side sticking to the body.According to the doctor, death Would have been instantaneous on receipt of the injuries.The plea of the accused was one of denial.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the First Information Report was given within one hour after the occurrence and that Exhibit P. 1. contained the names of all the appellants.The learned Judge further found that the motive was quite sufficient for the accused to commit the offence in question.The learned Judge, while accepting the testimony of P.W. 1, found that his evidence marked under Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, taken along with the evidence of P.Ws. 3: and 6, clearly established that all the five accused committed the offences charged against them and that they murdered the deceased Subbiah in cold blood.He even admits that Exhibit P-1 was read over to him.He admits further that all the recitals in Exhibit P-1 are true.He admits that he was examined in the committal Court.He further admits that Exhibit P-2 is his deposition The learned Sessions Judge records as-follows :Public Prosecutor requests the Court to mark it under Section 288, Criminal Procedure Code.Marked as requested.Exhibit P-2 was read over to the witnesses.Accused informed.P.W. 1 further stated that prior to his deposition in the committal Court he gave a statement under Section 164,, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Madurai.He further states that the SuB-1nspector held the inquest on the morning of the next day.P.W. 3 stated that there was bright moonlight, that all the five accused intercepted the deceased and that the second accused instigated the first accused to murder the deceased Subbiah, since the latter was supporting P.W. 4 Palaniandi as against the first accused.P.W. 3 swears that immediately the first accused dealt a cut with his aruval on the deceased, but the deceased tried to obstruct the cut and received it on his left hand.After receiving the cut the deceased Subbiah must have run for his life into the neighbouring field of Kaliappan.All the five accused chased him into the field and cut him indiscriminately as a result of which Subbiah died instantaneously.P.W. 3 was with the deceased Subbiah when the first cut was delivered by the first accused.He was standing on the side of the road near the fence and when the accused came he ran towards the village to inform the near relations of the deceased about the occurrence.No motive has been suggested against P.W. 3 as to why he should implicate the five accused-appellants.Some attempt has been made at suggesting some misunderstanding between P.W. 3 and the first accused in regard to their engagement as tope kavalkars.At any rate we find a total absence of any suggestion to P.W. 3 as to why he did implicate falsely accused 2 to 5 at all.

Cited provisions: Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code