JUDGMENT :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

1. Crl. Appeal No. 100/2013 is filed by A1, A3, A4, A5, whereas Crl. Appeal No. 188/2013 is filed by A7 and A8 aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.01.2013 in S.C. No. 90/2012 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari at Eluru convicting A1 for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 302, 379 IPC; A3 u/s 120B and 302 IPC; A4, A5 and A8 u/s 120B, 302 r/w 34 IPC; A7 u/s 120B IPC and sentencing A1, A3, A4, A5, A7 and A8 to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. for six months. Additionally A1 is sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and in default to suffer S.I. for three months.

Case against A2 was abated as he died pending trial and case against A6 was split up and separated.

2. The matrix of the prosecution case which ultimately led to the conviction of accused can be stated thus:

(a) A1 and A3 are own brothers, and A2 and A4 are their close associates. A4 is the driver of TATA Sumo van bearing No. AP-26-U-4185, which A1 hired for committing the offence. A5 is the lady engaged by A1 to seduce the deceased with her love potion and watch his movements and inform to him. Similarly, A8 was employed by the principal accused A6 - Pothamesetti Srihari Reddy to shadow and haunt the movements of the deceased viz. Karri Mohana Sai Reddy and pass on to A6. A7 is the brother-in-law of A8 and he was also employed by A6 to elicit the information relating to the movements of the deceased and convey to A6.

(b) A6 has been staying in Dubai on account of some employment and he has been carrying on immoral trafficking in women. The deceased also stayed in Dubai for some time and returned to India few months before the incident. He was also engaged in immoral trafficking of women for prostitution in Dubai. There were some trade rivalries between A6 and the deceased. In that context, A6 and A7 joined hands and caused some damage to the trade carried out by the deceased and in retaliation the deceased also caused some damage to A6 and A7. Further, the deceased while working in Dubai earned amounts and stored with A6 and A7 who promised to return the money while he returned to India but they did not return the amount and in that context also there was some rivalry between them. Ultimately, A6 and A7 determined to kill the deceased. A6, for this purpose, engaged A1 to kill the deceased, whereas A7 employed A8 to observe the movements of the deceased and inform him from time-to-time, so that the deceased could be successfully eliminated.

(c) The deceased returned from Dubai to his native place Velagalavaripalem in Penumantra Mandal in November 2005. While so, on 09.12.2005, A6 visited Velagalavaripalem and Rajahmundry and held a meeting with A1 and his associates in Room No. 319 at New Mounika Lodge behind Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry and deliberated the method and manner in which the deceased could be killed. Thus, A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A1 to A4. A6 expressed strong wish that the deceased must be killed and he would fund the amount.

(d) A1 having come to know that the deceased previously indulged in the trafficking of women in Dubai and habituated to the flesh trade, employed A5 as a tool to entice and trap the deceased and inform his movements to him. A1 had already had illicit intimacy with A5 and so A5 expressed her consent to play the role of a vamp in the plot. As per plan, A5 developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and she used to inform the activities of deceased from time to time to A1.

(e) While so, PW-6 used to do prostitution business in Dubai and there she was caught by police and later returned to India and started residing in Velpuru near Tanuku. She has the intimacy with A7 and also the deceased. The deceased used to express his view before her that he was intending to send girls to Dubai to do prostituti