MANICKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal 569/85 was A. 1 in Sessions Case No. 112/ 84 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1985 was A. 2 in the same Sessions Case. Both the appellants were tried under four heads of charges. The first charge against both of them was under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that at or about 10.30 p.m. on 1/1/1983 at Thathampatti village, they along with the juvenile accused Loganathan, caused the death of Mottai ammal by beating her with cart pegs. (Her death was at the hospital on the next day at 11.30 a.m.) This charge also reads that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellants in pursuance of their common intention to rob the jewellery and cash in the possession of the deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. The second charge was framed against the appellants under Section 394 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code for having committed robbery of the cash in the possession of the deceased, when she was attacked with lethal weapon mentioned in charge 1. The 3rd and 4th charges were framed against both the appellants under Section 394 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code for having committed robbery of jewellery and cash from the possession of P.Ws. 1 and 2, while attacking them with cart pegs.

(2.) The learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty of all the charges. Under the first charge, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In respect of charges 2, 3 and 4, each one of these appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows:- P.W. 12 Nehru has a brick kiln at Dasinayakanpatti. He knew the appellants and the juvenile accused. He had seen them moving together. At or about 5 p.m. on 1.1.1983 when he was buying cigarettes from a petty shop situated near Jayalakshmi theatre at Seelanayyakkanpatti, he noticed the appellants and juvenile accused coming towards the shop. The first appellant asked for Rs. 5/- from him, but he parted with Rs. 3/- stating that was all the money he possessed.