JUDGMENT

P. Devadass, J.— Though two separate appeals have been filed by two sets of accused, since the appeals are connected on facts, law and evidence this common judgment is being rendered.

2. A1 Ganesan, A3 Murugan, A5 Balan @ Balaguru, A6 Pandi and A7 Sakthivel in S.C. No. 7 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul are appellants 1 to 5 in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 496 of 2010 and A4 Kumar @ Thambi is appellant in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 490 of 2010.

3. For convenience sake, let us call them as they were arrayed in the Trial Court, namely, A1, A3, A5 to A7 (appellants in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 496 of 2011 and A4 [appellant in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 490 of 2010)].

4. The prosecution version of the case in brief runs as under:

(i) Murugan (deceased) and Pandiammal belong to Mathanapatti in Dindigul Taluk. They had love affair. A Panchayath was held. Pandiammal was married to her uncle’s son A1 Ganesan. Murugan was married to Amutha (PW 3). Murugan was living in his wife’s village Kapiliapatti. After few years, Pandiammal frequented the village. Old contact between the ex-lovers got renewed. In July, 2004, Murugan took her away and k