Conviction upheld for primary accused due to strong corroborative evidence, while secondary accused acquitted for lack of direct evidence linking them to the crime.

ORDER :

Challenging the judgment of conviction dated 13.8.2018 rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Palladam in S.C.No.148 of 2013, which stands confirmed except with a slight modification in respect of legal provision with regard to conviction alone by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2018 vide judgment dated 18.6.2021, the present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed.

2. Criminal Revision Case No.764 of 2021 has been filed by A3 and A4. Criminal Revision Case No. 932 of 2021 has been filed by A2 while Criminal Revision Case No.39 of 2022 has been filed by A1. Since all the revisions arise out of the common Criminal Appeal and Sessions Case, they are taken up and disposed by a common order.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The petitioners/A1 to A4 were tried by the Trial Court in S.C.No.148 of 2013 and an order of conviction and sentence was imposed as under:-

5. All the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2018.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, by judgment dated 18.6.2021, dismissed the Appeal except modifying the legal provision of conviction in respect of A1, A3 and A4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been filed by all the accused.

6. The case of the prosecution is as under:-

i) The de facto complainant Arulprakash, PW1, is a driver employed at A.K. Travels, Coimbatore, owned by PW2. The petitioners herein are friends. The petitioner/accused 1, 2 and 4 are working in Brookefield, Sathyam Cinemas at Coimbatore. A3 is the brother of A4. A3 had illicit intimacy with one lady by name Vennila and since her husband was an obstacle, they planned to eliminate him and all accused joined together, conspired to commit murder.

ii) For that purpose, A1 and A2, at the instigation of A3 and A4, hatched a plan and decided to steal a car and to use the car to eliminate the husband of the said Vennila. A3 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to A1 and A2 and A4 had permitted A1 and A2 to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- using ATM card for that purpose.

iii) Thereafter, A1 and A2, on 8.3.2013 at about 8.00 pm, called A.K.Travels and hired a car to travel to Palani. PW2, the owner of the said Travels insisted their address. A1 and A2 forwarded their address through SMS Saravana Complex, Punniagodi Street, Coimbatore-2 and informed they are staying at CIG Pride Lodge. PW2 directed his Driver PW1/de facto complainant for the Trip and gave the address of A1 and A2.

iv) The de facto complainant picked up A1 and A2 in TATA Indica Car, bearing reg. No. TN 38 BD 6797. The de facto complainant was asked by A1 and A2 to stop the car near Palani Temple and after one hour, they again asked him to drop them at Palladam Bus stand. When the car was nearing Pulliappampalayam Junction, A1 and A2 asked PW1 to stop the car.

v) On 09.03.2013 at about 05.00 a.m., one of the occupant of the car viz., A2, who was sitting in the front seat, punched the driver/PW1 on his face and the other accused viz., A1, who was sitting in the rear seat, caught hold of PW1 and shut his mouth and pulled him out of the car, A2 inflicted cut injuries on the cheek of the de facto complainant and thereafter, both A1 a