JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu & N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2019 in S.C.No.105 of 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni.

The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Session Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Theni, made in S.C.No.105 of 2013, dated 25.09.2019, convicting each of the appellants for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 201 IPC, have filed this Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants had a property dispute with P.W-5, who is the brother of A1. Four or five days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused persons wanted to remove their agricultural produce and hence, sought for the permission of P.W-5 to take it through their pathway and P.W-5 and his wife Anuthiammal (deceased) refused to grant the permission. According to the prosecution, this incident resulted in the accused persons deciding to do away with Anuthiammal and pursuant to the same, on 28.12.2012, at about 11.00 a.m., when Anuthiammal was alone in her house, the accused persons lured her to their house which was near the house of the deceased and on the deceased coming to their house, poured kerosene on the deceased and lit her on fire. Thereafter, they are said to have immersed the head of the deceased in an open water tub and as a result, the deceased suffocated and died. The accused persons, thereafter, are alleged to have taken the deceased to her house and created a scene as if the deceased hung from the ceiling with the help of her saree and thereby attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence. In view of the same, charges were framed against each of the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

3. The prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W-25 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and material objects were identified and marked as M.O.1 to M.O.12.

4.The Trial Court questioned the appellants under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating materials that were collected in the course of Trial. The accused persons denied the same as false.

5.The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and thereby, convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner mentioned supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have filed this appeal.

6. Heard Mr. M. Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7. This Court has carefully considered the materials available on record and the submissions made on either side.

8. The case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence that was relied upon by the prosecution are :

- The demise of the deceased was homicidal and the same was established by examining the postmortem Doctor (P.W-22) and by marking the postmortem certificate (Ex.P8).

- The motive for the occurrence has been sought to be established through the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-5 and P.W-7.

- The accused persons were last seen with the deceased and the same was sought to be established through the evidence of P.W-3.

- The recovery of M.O.2 to M.O.7 through the evidence of P.W-10 through Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

- The non-explanation of the burn injury sustained by A2 immediately after the incident, even when a relevant question was put to A2 under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C.

- The Observation Mahazar and the