S.NAGAMUTHU.J,

The appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.109 of 2011 are accused in S.C.No.109 of 2009 and the appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.110 of 2011 is the accused in S.C.No.109(A) of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. The trial court conducted joint trial in both the cases and delivered a common judgment. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.109 of 2009 were arrayed as A1, A2, A4 and A5 and the appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.110 of 2011 was arrayed as A3. [In this judgement, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the appellants in the order of array before the trial court]. They stood charged for offences under Sections 148, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. By judgement dated 14.02.2011, the trial court acquitted all the five accused from the charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC, but convicted them for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 148 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this court with these criminal appeals.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Chellappa. He was residing at No.153, Bharathiar Street, Tirunelveli Town, along with his wife and family members. PW.1 is his wife. P.W.5 & P.W.6 and one Durai are the friends of the deceased. The mother of the deceased was owning a land near Arungiri Theatre in Tirunelveli Town. The father of A1 was enjoying the said property as a tenant. After the demise of his father, A1 and the other legal heirs of his father did not take care of the land. The land remained barren. The deceased, his brother and his mother, therefore, decided to sell the property. The deceased was authorized by his mother and brother to negotiate for selling the land. A1 was opposing the said move. A1 claimed that he would sell the land and pay the sale consideration to the deceased and his mother. This was not agreeable to the deceased. This resulted in frequent quarrels between the two families and the same developed into a strong enmity. One of the relatives of the deceased intervened and tried to settle the issue. On 10.09.2008, he had brought A1 and the others to the house of the deceased for a mediation in which everyone, except A1, agreed for the settlement. A1 boycotted the mediation. Except A1, all other persons entered into a compromise (vide Ex.P1) and, pursuant to the same, the deceased made arrangement to sell the property to one Mr.Ganesh. This came to the knowledge of A1. A2 and A3 also joined hands with A1. The said proposal for sale further infuriated A1 to A3.

3. Ten days prior to the alleged occurrence, A1 to A3 came to the house of the deceased and quarreled with him as the deceased did not agree for A1 to sell the property. A1, challenged the deceased and went away along with A2 and A3. This is stated to be the immediate motive for the occurrence.

4. On 12.10.2008, at about 08.00 p.m., the deceased had returned to his house. He was watching television in his house. At around 09.30 p.m., his friends P.Ws. 2, 5 and 6 and one Durai had come to his house. On seeing them, the deceased came out of the house and sat on the motor cycle of PW.2 which was parked just in front of his house and was engaged in a chat with his friends. P.W.1 was sitting on the steps in the main entrance of the house. At that time, it is alleged that five persons namely, A1 to A3 and two other persons [later on identified as A4 and A5] came in front of the house of the deceased. A2 was having sword in his hand and the others had each one aruval. On reaching the deceased, A1 shouted at the others to kill the deceased. So saying, A1 cut the deceased on the back of his head with aruval. On sustaining injury,