JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 16.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.137 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.

Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 16.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.137 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, be set aside and convict the respondents/accused for the charges framed against them.)

Common Judgment:

K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1.Since these two appeals are arising out of the same crime number and against the order of acquittal made in S.C.No.137 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, these two appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. The accused persons A1 to A13 in S.C.No.137 of 2015 were charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 364, 364 r/w 34, 302, 201, 404, 201 r/w 109, 201 r/w 34 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. After examination of all witnesses and evidence, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Hence, challenging the same, these two appeals were filed by the defacto complainant and the State respectively.

3(i). Brief facts of the prosecution case :

The defacto complainant preferred a complaint alleging that her daughter deceased Aathila Banu, a muslim lady entered into love marriage with one Muthusamy, Hindu belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community as per the Muslim customs and in the wedlock, the deceased children viz., Ajira Banu(5 years) and Mohammed Aslam(7 years)were born to them. The said Muthusamy was a star witness in the murder of one Roseline, who was a relative of A-11's son-in-law. But the said Muthusamy did not support the case and was declared as hostile. In the result, the said case ended in acquittal.

3(ii). After acquittal, the said Muthusamy left India and went to Singapore to carry out his job, where the first accused was also working. In Singapore, due to the above hostility in the murder case, the first accused is said to have assaulted Muthusamy in Singapore and broke his little finger. Enraged by the same, the deceased Aathila Banu uttered harsh words of taking revenge upon the said A1, in front of A8- Jeyakumar, who had acquittance with both the deceased family as well as the accused family. In turn, A8 transmitted the said message to A1 and hence A1 and the family members along with remaining accused conspired together to murder the deceased Aathila Banu. In furtherance of conspiracy, on the date of the occurrence, ie., on 08.11.2010 at 4.00 p.m, A8-Jeyakumar called the deceased through the mobile phone to come and collect the Gas cylinder. The deceased left the residence along with her two children after informing the defacto complainant. She parted with A8 and A8 clandestinely taken the deceased to the custody of A1 and the remaining accused. All the accused jointly abducted the deceased along with her children into an isolated place at Vedhalam, Ramanathapuram District and murdered them in the TATA Sumo car and buried their dead bodies in the grove of A10 and subsequently, exhumed the dead bodies and packed the two children's dead bodies in one parcel wrapping with white cloth and the deceased Aathila Banu's dead body was packed in another parcel wrapping with white cloth and transported the same to two separate isolated places near Vadipatti in the Maduai- Dindigul National Highways within the limit of the Vadipatti Police Station jurisdiction, a far away place from th