Criminal conviction under Sections requiring multiple offenders cannot be sustained if the total number falls below statutory thresholds, but direct involvement in murder can still warrant conviction despite these limitations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to set aside the judgment in S.C.No.139/2010, dated 17.04.2021 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and allow this Criminal Appeal.)

M.S. Ramesh, J.

1. The appellant is the third, among the seven accused before the trial Court. The first and second accused had died even prior to the commencement of the trial. Through a judgment dated 17.04.2021, made in S.C.No.139 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'A3') was not found guilty under Section 120(b) IPC, but was found guilty of the offence under Sections 148 , 341, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Section 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 148 IPC, together with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under Section 3 41 IPC; life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 3 02 r/w 149 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 3 07 r/w 149 IPC; and Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The period of imprisonment already undergone by A3 during trial, was ordered to be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C and all the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

2. The charges against A4 to A7 were held as not proved. The present appeal is filed by A3, who alone has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the various offences detailed above.

3. The brief case of the prosecution, as projected before the trial Court, are as follows:

3.1. A1, A2 and A3, who were relatives, were indulging in illegal sand mining. The brother of A1 viz., Periyasamy also had a dispute with Muthuramalingam / the deceased herein in the illegal sand mining. In consequence to this dispute, earlier one Ibrahim / P.W.1, who was an employee of the deceased, was abducted by A1 to A3 and a criminal complaint was also registered against them. Owing to this, A1 to A3 had developed a grudge against the deceased and consequently, had entered into a conspiracy with Narayanan /A7, who had engaged hirelings. The conspiracy is alleged to have taken place at Kukkani Village, Thoothukudi on 01.10.2003.

3.2. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the accused had gathered near a coconut grove of one Arivazhagan with sickles, bill-hook machete and country bombs, waiting for the deceased.

3.3. On 03.10.2003 at 7.00 a.m., the deceased