Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1.Criminal Appeal(MD)No.325 of 2022 is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.68 of 2015 dated 29.03.2019 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, thereby convicting the appellant/A.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 449, 302 r/w 34 (2 counts), 394 r/w 397 I.P.C.

2.Criminal Appeal(MD)No.607 of 2022 is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.67 of 2015 dated 29.03.2019 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, thereby convicting the appellant/A.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 449, 302 r/w 34 (2 counts), 394 r/w 397 I.P.C.

3.The case of the prosecution is that both the deceased persons were residing in a separate house at Ramankulam, Kusavangundu. While being so, the accused visited the house of the first deceased for the purpose of white washing. The first accused was a friend of the third accused. The first and second accused conspired together with the third accused to rob in the house of the first deceased. In furtherance of their conspiracy, on 10.04.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused had gone to the house of the first deceased and knocked on the door, asking for water. When the first deceased went inside the house to bring water, the first accused trespassed into the house and strangled the second deceased. When the second accused shouted, the third accused entered into the house and held the first deceased from behind.

4.The second accused also trespassed into the house of the first deceased and stabbed him in the stomach with a dagger. The first and third accused had borrowed the said dagger from the second accused and stabbed the first and second deceased multiple times on various places of their bodies and thereby caused death. Thereafter, they robbed two cell phones, silver articles, one pair of ear stud, one nose stud, gold rings and a sum of Rs.2,000/-.

5.Based on the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.45 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 449 , 302, 394 read with 397 and 120(b) of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

6.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Exs.P1 to P26. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.16. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

7.During trial, the second accused claimed to be a Juvenile and as such, the second accused was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board.

8.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the first and third accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 449, 302 read with 34 (2 counts) and 394 read with 397 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 120(b) of I.P.C; they were sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 449 of I.P.C; they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each for every count and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for every count in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each for every count for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C (2 counts) and they were sentenced to undergo 10 years Ri