MANDAIYAN AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, these appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No. 804 of 2004 is the 1st accused; the appellants in Crl.A.(MD). No. 797 of 2004 are the 3rd and 7th accused; the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No. 726 is the 4th accused; the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No. 707 of 2004 is the 5th accused; the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No. 721 of 2004 is the 8th accused; and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No. 23 of 2004 is the 9th accused in S.C. No. 526 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I), Madurai. The second accused in this case is one Mr. Suresh, who has not made any appeal against his conviction. The 3rd accused viz., Mr. Saravanan (one of the appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No. 797 of 2004) and the 6th accused viz., Mr. Kaviraj, are stated to be dead. Thus, there were totally 9 accused in this case. The trial Court, by judgment dated 11.05.2004, convicted all the accused under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with these appeals. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A. (MD).No. 804 of 2004 viz., Mr.V.Murugesan has not made appearance repeatedly. Therefore, one Mr.P.Arumugam, a member of the Madurai Bar was appointed as a State Brief Counsel. He argued the case in Crl.A.(MD).No. 804 of 2004. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the other appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. I have also perused the records carefully.