All these criminal appeals namely C.A.Nos.39, 47, 85, 92 and 165 of 2006 concentrate in challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Chennai at Poonamallee, in S.C.No.311 of 2004 whereby the appellants, six in number, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:

TABLE

2.Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:

(a) P.W.2 the eldest sister of the deceased Prasad Sebastin, and P.W.1, the husband of P.W.2, were residing at Madras. P.W.1 was employed in the Government Secretariat. The deceased Prasad Sebastin, the brother of P.W.2, was a native of Punalur in the State of Kerala. He was an active member of CPI(M) and was also the Opposition Leader of Punalur Municipality. Originally, he was a resident of Madras. He worked at Britania Biscuit Company at Madras when he was staying with his father Mr.Rozario, an Ayurvedic Doctor.

(b) On 25. 2003, Sebastin came to Madurai in a Jeep of Rural Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank of which he was the President during that time. Then he boarded a train to Chennai. On the morning of 25. 2003, he went to the house of P.W.2 at Door No.7/7, Peters Colony, had breakfast and went outside to see a Financier, who advanced moneys to one Navasath to purchase a motor vehicle. He did not return that day, but phoned to P.W.2 that he would stay in his friends house. The next morning that was on 25. 2003, he came to the house of P.W.2. After breakfast, he went outside telling that he was to meet a Financier, but on the night of 25. 2003, he did not return. Since he did not return to Punalur as per the original plan on 25. 2003, and there was no report from him and also he did not return for a few days, P.W.2 spoke to her mother at Punalur. Her mother replied that he did not come to Punalur also. Hence P.W.1 approached D2 Anna Salai Police Station and gave Ex.P1, the report.

(c) P.W.60, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, on the strength of Ex.P1, the report, registered a case in Crime No.521/2003 under the caption man missing. The printed FIR in that regard is marked as Ex.P96. Then P.W.60 took up investigation and proceeded to the spot. He enquired both P.W.1 and P.W.2 and recorded their statements. He noted the Caller I.D. Phone used by P.W.1, and further noticed that Prasad Sebastin has contacted P.W.2 on 25. 2003 from phone No.24510087 and on 25. 2003 from phone No.24512645. He called police Photographer, P.W.3, and took M.O.2 series in respect of those numbers as found in the Caller I.D. The Caller I.D. Phone is marked as M.O.1., while the series of the photographs are marked as M.O.2. P.W.60 deputed police personnel to find out these numbers as found in the Caller ID. Then he examined P.W.5 Bharath, Susil, the Financier at T.Nagar and Jayachandran, P.W.24, a close friend of the deceased, and recorded their statements.

(d) When the friends of Sebastin came to know about his missing, they phoned to P.W.1 on the night of 30.5.2003. Thereafter, they met P.W.1 at Chennai. They also met Jayachandran. On 35. 2003 at about 10.30 A.M., one Titus, a friend of the deceased, contacted P.W.1 over phone and requested her to come to Kottivakkam with the police officials. He also further stated that Sebastin was suspected to have been kept in a house secretly. P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.23 and also P.W.60, the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the house at Kottivakkam and found Jayachandran and friends of Sebastin. After several knockings, the door was opened by A-1 Anand. When enquired, he pleaded innocence about the deceased. He also stated that the owner of the house was to Tuticorin with his wife. But, Jayachandran informed that the house belonged to one Indira, A-6. At that time, a courier tapal addressed to Indira Suresh Babu, sent by Suresh Babu from Kerala was received. The tapal contained a cheque for Rs.90,000/-. When P.W.60 questioned, A-1 did not give direct answers. Then, a suspicion arose on the conduct o