The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

These Criminal Appeals are filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/accused No.1, 3 and 4 in the judgment dated 14.10.2020 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.508 of 2016 by convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 341 r/w.34, 364 r/w.34, 120(b) r/w.302, 302 r/w.341 of IPC. A1 and A3 had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment each. A1, A3 and A4 had been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 120(b) r/w.302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 34 1 r/w.34 of IPC they were sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment, for offence under Section 364 r/w.34 IPC they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment each. A4 had been convicted for offence under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Accused Nos.2 and 5 were acquitted.

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

(a)The complainant is a resident of Melakottai Village, Thirumangalam. His wife's name is Jeevarani. He had two sons viz., Ramachandran, Ramanathan @ and Ranjith. His younger son completed ITI and worked in SIDCO No.3, HI Tech Company as a Mechanic at Kappalur. He had love affairs with one Hemalatha D/o. Pandiraj, whom he married and living in Thirumangalam Pandi Nagar. In the meantime, A1 was making some offensive gestures towards his daughter-in-law and harassing her. She complained about the same to her husband and the complainant.

(b) Both cautioned him, but A1 repeatedly gave trouble to her, when the same was questioned by his son, he replied that he could do whatever he wished. He also proclaimed that he would kidnap his wife after killing him. A1 and the accused quarreled with each other, The complainant separated them. At that time A1 was accompanied by his father Murugan(A2), his friends, Amirkhan (A3) and Venkatesh (A4). His son apprehends danger to his life.

(c) On 22.11.2015 his son came on his bike, heading to work, the complainant and his elder followed him on another bike to safeguard him. When he approached Thirumangalam Pandi Nagar, Railway Gate, A1 to A4 intercepted his son, A1 confronted him asking why he had repeatedly thrashed him and stated that if he were alive, he would question him. Then, A1 attacked him with an iron rod on his head while A2 restrained the deceased from proceeding further. A3 and A4 strangulate his son.

(d) On witnessing the same, the complainant's elder son attempted to intervene, but the assailants pushed them away and forcibly took his son in a Tata Ace bearing Registration No. TN 58 Z 0633. The complainant and his son chased them, but the vehicle suddenly disappeared. On the next day at about 11:00a.m, they found his son’s dead body near the Odaipalam Bridge, Vadakarai Colony situated at Melakottai with severe head injury, and nail marks on his neck. A1 to A4 kidnapped his son and killed him and hence, lodged the complaint before the Thirumangalam Police Station.

(e) The complaint Ex.P.1