MARIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally, a case was committed against all the three accused under one case. A1 was charged for an offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and A2 and A3 were charged for an offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial Court also framed charges. But later the Sessions Court split up the case and numbered as two sessions cases. One for the offence under Sections 302, 302 read with 201 IPC and the other case only for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial Court confirmed the accused not guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted under Section 304 (II) IPC. In the other case it convicted both the accused under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, all the three have filed these two appeals.

(2.) Since the facts are one and the same, and the witnesses also speak the same points, both the appeals were heard together and common judgment is pronounced.

(3.) Marimuthu and Karunakaran are the appellants in C.A.No. 618 of 1995 and Anjalai is the appellant in C.A.No. 620 of 1995. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are hereinafter referred as A1 to A.3. A1 Anjalai is the mother-in-law, A2 Marimuthu is the father-in-law, and A.3 Karunakaran is the husband of the deceased Maheswari. According to prosecution A1 caused the death of Maheswari by hitting her on the temple using a kj;J (wooden house hold article used for grinding dhall). A2 and A3 wanted to screen the offence and the offender, and, therefore, hung the dead body from the roof and thus committed the offence stated above.