VIDYALAKSHMI @ VIDYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such arise out of the common impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the respective Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court convicting the original Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (original Accused Nos. 1 and 2), for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC (original Accused Nos. 1 and 3) and for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC (original Accused No. 3) and convicting the original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals.

(3.) As per the case of the prosecution, Accused No. 1 and Accused No.3 had been lovers for more than last three years. The marriage of the Accused No. 3 was solemnised on 7.6.2006 with one Anandaraman (the deceased) in Chennai against the will of Accused No. 3. It was the case of the prosecution that after the solemnisation of the marriage with a view to live with Accused No. 1 after doing away with Anandaraman before 18.06.2006, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 hatched up a conspiracy and solicited the assistance of A2 and subsequently A2 became a party to the conspiracy. It was the further case on behalf of the prosecution that Accused No. 3 after the marriage planned with Anandaraman to go to different tourist centres in Kerala under the guise of a honeymoon celebration and disclosed the particulars of such journeys and visits to Accused No.1. The couple started from Chennai on 16.06.2006 to Kerala for visiting Guruvayoor and Munnar. Accused No. 3 with pre-determination passed information to Accused No.1 through mobile phone, whereby to facilitate Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 to pursue/follow the couple. Accused No. 3 led Anandaraman to the Kundala Dam at Munnar (place of the offence) under the pretext of going tour and thereafter having boating she took Anandaraman to a lonely place and brought about the arrival of first and second accused thereby passing information over mobile phone. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was led by Accused No. 3 to a catchment area which afforded opportunity for implementation of the scheme of conspirators.