A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. Nelliyampathy hillocks and hamlets in Palakkad District are famous for scenic beauty and fertile farm lands. Tapioca is a prominent cultivation, besides vast plantations and other cash crops.

2. In November, 1992, towards end of the month, the inhabitants of Mandhamchola in Nelliyampathy Village woke up on hearing the news that Chandran, a native and one Thankamani, a lady who lived with him, had gone missing mysteriously. They were residing in a shed erected in the farm land where Chandran had been cultivating tapioca. It may be relevant in this context to note that there is a serious dispute regarding the date of their disappearance. After a couple of months, mortal remains of Chandran in the form of a skeleton, shirt, etc. were found out from a place in Mandhamchola. Shortly thereafter, charred bones of a human being were also found out from a nearby place. Even before that, a case had been registered in Padigiri Police Station as Crime No. 2 of 1993 under the caption "man missing." Later the crime was altered to one for murder and other offences. Dissatisfied with the manner in which the local police conducted the investigation, there was public outcry and therefore the Government entrusted investigation to the Crime Branch. After investigation, they filed a final report implicating altogether 12 accused persons for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and the Arms Act, 1959 (in short "Arms Act").

3. At the time of the committal proceedings, the 1st accused Ayyappan died. Therefore, the court below re-arrayed the original accused persons 2 to 13 as accused 1 to 12. After hearing both the sides, the trial court framed charges under Sections 109, 120-B, 118, 114, 449, 302, 511, 201, 403 and 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 5, 27 (1) and 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and Rule 37 of the Arms Rules against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 8; under Sections 118, 511 of 201 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused Nos. 2 to 4 and under Sections 201, 204, 218, 120-B and 193 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused persons 2, 6, 7 and 9 to 12. From the judgment under challenge, it can be seen that after closing evidence, the 6th accused Cicily died on 26.07.2007. Therefore charge against her was abated. It is submitted that 10th accused died after conviction.

4. After an elaborate trial, all the accused, except 5th accused Preman and 11th accused Narayanan, were convicted for various offences, which we shall deal with at appropriate parts of this judgment.

5. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the accused have preferred these appeals. We may refer to the appellants in the order of their rank in the Sessions Case for convenience and clarity.

6. We heard Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused 2, 7 and 9; Sri. Dinesh M. learned counsel (State Brief) appearing for the 1st accused; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the accused 3, 4 and 8 and Sri. K.A. Salil Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the 12th accused. We also heard Smt. S. Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. In order to prove the prosecution case, 64 witnesses were examined. 29 exhibits were marked on the side of prosecution. Material objects are MOs 1 to 18. Defence marked three documents, viz., Exts.D1 to D3.

8. Prosecution case, unfolded from the final report, is as follows:

Deceased Chandran was engaged in tapioca cultivation at Mandhamchola. Deceased 6th accused Cicily and 7th accused Jose were cultivating tapioca adjacent to the farm land of deceased Chandran. 2nd accused Paulose is the husband of deceased 6th accused Cicily. One Karunakaran was owner of the lands, where deceased Chandran, deceased 6th accused Cicily and 7th accused Jose had cultivated tapioca. On account of some monetary disputes, deceased Chandran had caused obstructions in the cultivation and harvest by deceased 6th accused Cic