JUDGMENT :

R.N. Manjula, J.

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13.04.2016 in S.C.No.118 of 2012 on the file of the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.)

(Heard through Video Conferencing)

1. There are totally 4 accused in this case. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted A.1 and A.4 and convicted A.2 and A.3 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A.2 to set aside the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No. 118/2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, dated 13.04.2016, as tabulated hereunder:

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

On 28.01.212 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy between themselves at the place of occurrence itself to murder the victim woman Anjalam and rob the jewels worn by her. And they were waiting at the place of occurrence in order to execute the conspiracy hatched between them. Shortly thereafter when Anjalam crossed there, at the instigation of A.1, A.4 covered the face of Anjalam with a dhoti. A.3 caught hold of both her legs and A.2 attacked her with a bamboo stick on her left ear and then lifted her to the banks of a nearby stream. After reaching there, A.2 compressed her neck with a nylon rope and killed her. After she died A.2 and A.3 robbed the jewels from the body of the deceased.

3. On receiving a complaint (Ex.P1) given by P.W.1 (the son of the deceased), a case was registered in Cr.No.23/2012 by the Thittagudi police station for the offence under Sections 302 and 392 IPC. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 120 B and 302 r/w 392 IPC. The committal Court took cognizance of the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4/2012 and after observing the legal formalities charges have been framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 120 B, 302 r/w 392 IPC and completed the committal proceedings. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, it was taken on file. After complying the legal mandates the trial was conducted.

4. On the side of the prosecution, 20 witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 20 and Exs.P-1 to P-24 and M.Os. 1 to 24 have been marked. On the side of the defence/accused, no witness was examined and Ex.D1 to D4 were marked.

5. After concluding the trial and upon hearing both sides, the trial Court passed a judgment by acquitting A.1 and A.4 and convicting A.2 and A.3 as stated supra. Challenging the same, the appellant/ A.2 has preferred this Appeal.

6. P.W.1 is the complainant and the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has got another son P.W.4- Varadharajan. P.W.3-Illavarasi is the wife of P.W.1. The deceased and her husband P.W.2 were living along with her sons as a joint family. P.W.6- Kamalanathan, is working as an electrician in the same village. According to the testimony of P.W.6, one month before the date of occurrence one day at about 10.00 a.m. when he was sitting at Karrupayya Koil along with one Ramachandiran, A.1 and A.2 came there and conversed that the wife of dharmakartha would come that way and if they finished her off, they could rob her jewels. When P.W.6 and Ramachandran questioned A.1 & A.2 about this, they told that they had just spoken so for fun.

7. P.W.1-Dhanarasu, who is the complainant has stated that on 28.01.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased sent off his son to school through bus and thereafter she went to her lands by taking a lunch bag containing a lunch box and plastic water bottle; she also took a bamboo stick with her; In the sam