THANGAPANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.306/2006 is the 2nd accused and the appellant in Cr.A.(MD)No.465/2006 is the 1st accused in S.C.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. The 1st accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and the 2nd accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 16.05.2006, the trial court acquitted the 1st accused from the lone charge framed against her. However, the trial court convicted the 2nd accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC. By the same judgment, the trial court confiscated the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-57F 4425, belonging to the 1st accused.

(2.) Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the 2nd accused has come up with Crl.A.(MD)No.306/2006 and challenging the order of confiscation, confiscating the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-57F 4425, the 1st accused has come up with Crl.A.(MD)No.465/2006. The State has not made any appeal against the acquittal of the 1st accused. The wife of the deceased in this case, namely P.W.2, has come up with Crl.Rc.(MD)No.640/2006, challenging the acquittal of the 1st accused. That is how all the above three matters are before this Court, for disposal. Since these two criminal appeals and the criminal revision arise out of the same judgment, we have heard them altogether and dispose of them by means of this common judgment.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: