JUDGMENT :

C.Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried in Sessions Case No. 681 of 2011 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at Tenali, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘I.P.C.’] for causing the death of one Busi Nancharaiah [“deceased”] and thereafter made the incident appear as if it is a case of suicide by hanging the body to a bamboo stick in the house. By its Judgment, dated 11.02.2013, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C., and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences imposed against the appellants were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the same, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2013; while Accused No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2013. Both these appeals are heard through Bluejeans video conferencing APP and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts, as culled out from the prosecution witnesses, are as under:

(i) PW1 was blessed with three sons. The deceased was his last son. A1 is her daughter-in-law, while A2 was known to her. The deceased was blessed with two sons. PW6 is one of the son of A1 and the deceased. All of them were living in Addepalli Village; while parents of A1 were also living in Addepalli Village. The house of A1 and the deceased was separated by a distance of about 50 metres. It is said that, A1 developed intimacy with A2. Though, PW1 claims to know something about the illicit relationship, but, she did not inform the same to the deceased thinking that their family relationship may get affected.

(ii) About four months prior to the death of the son [deceased] of PW1, disputes arose between A1 and the deceased. It is said that, a month prior to the incident, A1 went away to her parent’s house along with her two sons. Since then PW1 was taking care of the deceased.

(iii) While things stood thus, PW1 went to A1 and requested her to join the deceased as he is facing problems at home. But, she refused to join and stated that she will continue her relationship with A2. Even though the elders questioned her, there was no change in her attitude, but, on the other hand, she conveyed that she will give divorce to the deceased. However, two days prior to the incident, A1 voluntarily came to deceased stating that she would discontinue her relationship with A2 and be a faithful housewife. Believing her, the deceased permitted A1 to join her.

(iv) On the fateful day, the deceased was sleeping on the mat, while PW6 and A1 slept on a cot outside. At that time, A1 is said to have telephoned to A2 to come to the house. At about 11.00 p.m., A2 took A1 into the hut. Both of them talked for some time in the hut and, thereafter, both of them came out, took the deceased by holding his hands and legs into the hut. A1 caught hold of the legs while A2 caught hold of the hands of the deceased and closed his mouth and nose. At about 5.00 a.m., PW6 claims to have seen his father’s death and, thereafter, went to the house of his maternal grandmother [PW1] due to fear.

(v) According to PW1, on 23.05.2011 at about 5.30 a.m., while she was present in her house, she heard about deceased hanging in the house. She went to the hut and found his son [deceased] hanging with Navaru Patti [plastic tape]. A1 cried stating that her husband died. At that point of time, the persons who gathered there, cut the plastic tape and placed the body on the cot. By then, the deceased was dead. Suspecting foul play by both the accused, PW1 lodged a report with PW11 – Su