Conviction cannot be sustained without any legal evidence.

M.E.N. PATRUDU, J.

Both the appeals involve common question of law and fact as they arise out of the same judgment and hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.

1.1 Jesuprasad @ Prasad, the first accused in S.C.No. 48 of 2001 on the file of the Court of IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, is the appellant in Crl.A.No.848 of 2001, while so, Moonraja, the second accused in the case has preferred Crl.A.No.848 of 2001. Hereinafter, they are referred to as A1 and A2 respectively.

1.2 C.D. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for A1, Chandra Mohan, learned counsel has appeared for A2 and K. Radhakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared for the respondent/State.

1.3 Palanisamy is the deceased.

1.4 Both the accused are found guilty for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, they are convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, they were found not guilty for an offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted for the said offence, whereas the first accused was found guilty under Sections 324 and 506 (ii)I.P.C., and was convicted and sentenced for 2 years and 3 years respectively. The second accused was acquitted under the above charges. The Trial Court ordered that all the sentences should run concurrently.

1.5 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the appellants are challenging the legality and the correctness of the conviction and sentence.

1.6 We have heard elaborate arguments of both sides.

1.7 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have highlighted the various portions in the evidence of prosecution, in the impugned judgment and pointed out all important points available in favour of the appellants from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Incidentally, the learned counsel also pointed out several other factual details. The main grievance ventilated by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is bad in law and the conviction cannot sustain on merits.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that there is no evidence at all in favour of prosecution calling for conviction.

1.8 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent resisted the arguments through a fitting reply and submitted that the trial Judge was right in convicting the appellants and the appellants cannot canvas for any benefit of doubt as the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying heavily on the decision of the Trial Court took us through the various parts of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and canvassed for upholding the conviction.

The factual background of the case needs to be noted before deciding the point.

2.0 Facts:-

2.1 It is stated that A1 and A2 are friends being involved in selling illicit arrack and in fact it is their profession. According to the prosecution, the deceased and the first accused are not in cordial relations due to money matter.

2.2 The further case of the prosecution is that on 3.7.1999 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased went to the arrack shop of the first accused and consumed arrack on credit despite protest by the first accused, and the accused got annoyed and they have decided to murder the deceased and accordingly, both of them followed the deceased upto Kollidam river near Sathanur Vetti Poongavanam in Maharajapuram and they have restrained the deceased and immediately, the first accused beat the deceased on his head with Pathi Katti and the second accused took aruval from the possession of the deceased and beat him on his left hand and left leg and the deceased sustained blood injuries and met with instantaneous death.

2.3 It is also the case of the prosecution that both the accused threatened the eye-witnesses by name Salaman (P.W.5), Jeyabal (P.W. 6) and