MAHAMANI Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SERNTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.45/2009)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal (MD).Nos.300 of 2015 and 304 of 2015 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in S.C.No.406 of 2009 on the file of the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. There were two other accused arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4, who are respondents 4 and 5 in Crl.A.(MD).No.49 of 2016. The trial Court framed as many as seven charges against all the accused as detailed below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_264_LAWS(MAD)11_2016_1.html</FRM> By judgment dated 12.08.2014, the trial Court acquitted the accused 3 and 4 from all the charges, however, convicted the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No. 300 of 2015/A1 under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonemnt for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and convicted the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.304 of 2015/A2 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 from all the other charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1 has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.300 of 2015 and A2 has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.304 of 2015. Challenging the acquittal of the accused 3 and 4 from all the charges and challenging the acquittal of the accused 1 and 2 from the other charges, as detailed above, the defacto complainant has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.49 of 2016. That is how all these three appeals are before us for disposal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and we have also perused the records carefully.