PERUMAL AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the accused in S.C. No. 129 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dindigul. The trial Court framed as many as four charges. The first charge was against all the four accused under Section 364 IPC. The 2nd charge was under Section 341 IPC against the accused 2 and 4 alone. The third charge was under Section 341 IPC against the accused 3 and 4 alone and the 4th charge was under Section 302 IPC against all the accused. By judgment dated 27.10.2010, the trial Court convicted all the four accused under all the charges and accordingly sentenced them. For the offences under Section 364 IPC, the trial Court sentenced all the four accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence under Section 341 IPC, the trial Court sentenced all the four accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court sentenced the accused 1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the trial Court sentenced the accused 3 and 4 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who has spoken about the fact that the first accused appeared before him on 07.03.2009, made confession and he also found the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence. P.W.2 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by her and the final opinion. P.Ws.3 and 5 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.4 has spoken about the dead body at the place of occurrence and he has not spoken anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.6 is the owner of the car bearing Registration No. TN 47 C 2225 and he has stated that the car was all along only in his custody and he never gave the car to anybody. He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.7 - Assistant Chemical Examiner, who has stated that during chemical analysis, it was found that there was human blood on all the items sent to him. P.W.8 is the Head Constable, who has stated that he carried the dead body to the hospital for postmortem.