S. NAGAMUTHU, J.

The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. There were two other accused by name Krishnasamy and Paulraj, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused as under:

Charge Nos.	Against	Offence U/s.
1	A1 to A3	U/s.341 IPC
2	A2 and A3	U/s.294(b) IPC
3	(a) A2 and A3	U/s.302 r/w 109 IPC
	(b) A1	U/s.302 IPC

2. The trial Court, by judgment dated 25.6.2015, convicted the first accused under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC. The trial Court has convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Section 341 IPC alone and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused 2 and 3 did not file any appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them. The appellant/A1 alone is before this Court with this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Mariyappa Reddiyar. He was a resident of South Kailasapuram Village, Tirunelveli District. All the three accused also hail from the same village. The first accused is the son of the second accused and the third accused is the son-in-law of the second accused. There was a promboke land in the said village, which was enjoyed by the entire village in common. But, the second accused had put up a small hut on a portion of the same. This was objected to by the villagers. The four elders of the village convened a village Panchayat. In the said Panchayat, Panchayathars insisted the accused to remove the hut and to leave the vacant land for the use of the villagers. The accused had refused. Therefore, the villagers made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai Police Station. On 19.06.2013, there was an enquiry at the Police Station regarding the said issue. At the end of the enquiry, the accused agreed to remove the hut and to hand over the vacant possession to the villagers and it was ended into a statement recorded in the Police Station. According to the case of the prosecution, all these three accused felt aggrieved by the same. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.

(b) It is further alleged that after all of them had returned to the respective houses, around 4.30 p.m., these three accused were in their house. At that time, these three accused were talking among themselves that for the above humiliation suffered in the Police Station, somebody from the opposite group should be killed. They further discussed that the deceased Mr.Mariyappa Nadar, who was leading the villagers, should be killed. This, according to the prosecution, was overheard by PW6. On the same day, at 4.30 p.m. the deceased went to Pasuvanthanai, which is a mini Town situated at a distance of about one kilometre from the house of the deceased. PWs.3 and 4, the other villagers, belonging to the same community of the deceased, also went to Pasuvanthanai.

(c) After completing the purchase of certain materials, PWs.3 and 4 went to return to South Kailasapuram Village. The deceased also joined them. The deceased was proceeding in his bicycle ahead of PWs.3 and 4, who were following him in a single bicycle. When they were nearing South Kailasapuram Village, near Periyasamy Nadar Rice Mill, these three accused suddenly emerged. The first accused was having an aruval in his hands. All the three accused intercepted the deceased. The deceased got down from the cycle. Then, the second ac