S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellant in Crl.A.No. 582 of 2013 is A.1 ; the appellant in Crl.A.No. 619 of 2013 is A.2 ; the appellant in Crl.A.No. 385 of 2013 is A.3 ; the appellant in Crl.A.No. 371 of 2013 is A.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No. 350 of 2013 is A.5 in S.C.No. 130 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The trial Court framed as many as six charges as detailed below :-

  

Charges	Accused	Section of law
Charge No. 1	Accused 1 to 4	120(B) I.P.C.,
Charge No. 2	A.1	376 I.P.C.,
Charge No. 3	A.1	302 I.P.C.,
Charge No. 4	A.1 to A.4	392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,
Charge No. 5	A.2 to A.4	302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,
Charge No. 6	A.5	414 I.P.C.,

By judgement dated 22.04.2013, the trial Court convicted all the accused under all the charges and sentenced them as detailed below :-

Accused	Section of law	Sentence
A.1	120(B) I.P.C.,	Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
	392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,	Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
	120(B) I.P.C.,	Rigorous imprisonment for two years
A.2 to A.4	302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,	Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
	392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,	Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
A.5	414 I.P.C.,	Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The trial Court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-

The deceased in this case was one Mrs. Vimala. P.W. 1 is her husband. P.W. 1 was working as a Salesman in a private concern. The deceased was doing cloth business at her house itself. P.W. 1 was assisting her in the said business. It was the practise of P.W. 1 to leave the house for his work in the morning at 9.00 am and to return to his house around 6.30 pm. On 20.01.2012, in the usual course, P.W.1 had left the house for his work leaving the deceased alone at his house.

3. Thereafter, around 12.45 pm on the same day, the deceased called him over phone and informed that A.3 who was already known to the deceased and P.W. 1 had come to their house for the purpose of purchasing clothes in connection with a function at his house. The deceased further told that A.3 had selected the clothes and she gave the details of the items selected by him to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 calculated the price of those items and informed the deceased to collect Rs. 8,525/- as the price for the clothes and to sell the same to A.3. Then within a short while, the deceased again called P.W. 1 over phone and informed that A.3 had taken only two shirts promising to visit again to purchase rest of the clothes. P.W. 1 instructed the deceased to sell the clothes to A.3 only after receiving the cost.

4. Around 4.00 pm on the same day, P.W. 1 tried to contact the deceased through her cell phone. But, the cell phone of the deceased was in a switched off mode. Then, at around 6.30 to 7.00 pm, as usual, P.W. 1 returned to his house. He was in possession of one of the keys for the outer gate of the house. With that key, he opened the lock of the outer gate and entered into the premises but, the main door of the house was found locked. Through the outside electricity switch, he put on the lights outside and went to the nearby Tea Shop, believing that the deceased had gone elsewhere in connection w