AYYANAR @ CHINNAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1, in S.C.No.5 of 2004, on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udagamandalam. Appellant/A1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default to undergo a further period of one year's simple imprisonment and convicted under Section 302 r/w 201 (2 counts), IPC, imposed a sentence of three years' RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default to undergo 1 year's simple imprisonment for each count and the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) HEARD Mr.K.V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.T.Selvam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(3.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: - According to the prosecution, the father of the appellant/A1 is A2 and the brothers -in -law of the appellant are A3 and A4. Accused A1 to A3 were residing at Athima Nagar and A4 was residing at Ponnrunadukani. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased Sainaba. P.W.2 is the son of Sainaba. The deceased Sainaba was a tenant residing in the house of P.W.4 along with her son P.W.2. P.W.5, one Ravi and appellant/A1, were working under Asokan a contractor. The appellant/A1, used to visit the house of Sainaba during night hours. Hence, P.W.4 owner of the house warned appellant/A1 not to come to the house, since the deceased Sainaba was residing lonely in her residential building. One day when the appellant/A1 visited the house of Sainaba, P.W.5 asked Sainaba about his visit, who in turn stated that she was going to marry A1. In 1998, September, one day morning, Sainaba had sent her son P.W.2 to his first husband's house saying that she was going to Kerala for doing some job and as such P.W.2 was living with her first husband. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the instigation of A2, the appellant/A1 had proposed to marry another girl, and in order to avoid hindrance from Sainaba, the appellant/A1 murdered her and concealed her dead body, with the help of A3 and A4. The Sessions Court, by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted A2 to A4, but convicted the appellant/A1 for the alleged offence.