JEYA ALIAS JAYAGURU AND ORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.304 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II) Tuticorin. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.1329 of 2000 is the first accused, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.1241 of 2000 is the second accused and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.1534 of 2000 is the third accused in the said case. The first accused stands convicted for offences under Sections 120(b), 364, 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC. The second accused stands convicted for offences under Sections 120(b) and 302 read with 109 IPC. The third accused stands convicted for offences under Sections 364, 201 and 302 IPC. For the offences under Sections 120(b), 364 and 201 IPC, the first appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for each offence and for offences under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The second appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offences under Section 120(b) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offences under Sections 302 read with 109 IPC. The third accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for offences under Sections 364 and 201 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows: The second accused is the wife of the deceased. She had developed illicit intimacy with the first accused. The third accused was the friend of the first accused. Since the deceased was a hindrance for their illicit intimacy, the accused 1 and 2 decided to do away with the deceased. They sought the help of the third accused. As a result, on 28.06.1999, all the three accused conspired near the shop of one Mageshkumar at Subramaniapuram, to kill the deceased and to dispose of the body. In the said conspiracy, A1 and A3 agreed to kill the deceased. Accordingly, on the same day at 10.15 p.m., in the presence of the first accused, the third accused stabbed the deceased with knife on the stomach, neck, back of chest and other parts of the body. The said occurrence took place near attrupathai at Vilathikulam. The first accused assisted the third accused by catching hold the deceased. The deceased died instantaneously. Thereafter the accused 1 and 3, with a view to escape from the clutches of law, took the dead body to a nearby small pond and immersed the body into the water and then they left the place of occurrence.

(3.) Subsequently, as though she did not know anything about the occurrence, the second accused preferred a complaint to the respondent police on 19.07.1999 alleging that her husband, namely, the deceased was found missing from 07.07.1999 onwards. On the said complaint, a case in Crime No.550 of 1999 for man missing was registered on 19.07.1999 itself. Even after the registration of the case, no progress could be made to find out the deceased.