JUDGMENT

Sharad Arvind Bobde, J.

1. These criminal appeals have been filed by the Appellant/accused against the final common judgment and order dated 02.08.2011 in Trial Case No. 4 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Madras.

2. A sentence of death having been imposed upon the Appellant, learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, referred the matter for confirmation to the High Court Under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of Criminal Procedure'). The Appellant preferred an appeal against conviction and sentences imposed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The High Court having dismissed the appeals the Appellant stands convicted and sentenced to death, for house-trespass Under Section 449; for wrongful confinement Under Section 342; for rape Under Section 376(1); for murder Under Section 302; for attempt to murder Under Section 307; for causing hurt during robbery Under Section 394 and for robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death Under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as "Indian Penal Code"].

3. The Appellant has been charged and convicted for committing the rape of the prosecutrix and slitting her throat and decamping with jewellery; further for the murder of her brother, Manikandan, who saw him committing the rape and for slitting the throat of P.W.-2 Sangeetha, who saw him kill the boy.

4. According to the prosecution, the Appellant, who had worked as a mason in the house of the parents of P.W.-1 Prosecutrix, gained access into the house on 04.10.2002. P.W.-11 Ramalingam and his wife P.W.-12 Maragatham had left the house in the morning. P.W.-1, the Prosecutrix, her relative P.W.-2 Sangeetha and the deceased Manikandan, her brother, were alone in the house. When the Appellant rang the door bell and the deceased enquired, the Appellant told him that he has left his iron bowl used for masonry work and wanted to take it back. Though the deceased told him that he could take it back after his father's return, the Prosecutrix intervened and said that he had been working in their house as mason and hence by so saying, she opened the door. The Appellant was carrying an aruval which is a sharp edged curved weapon in his waist. The Appellant upon entry, bolted the door immediately. When Manikandan, P.W.-1 Prosecutrix and P.W.-2 Sangeetha screamed, the Appellant took hisaruval from his waist and threatened the inmates not to shout by keeping the aruval on the neck of the deceased. He then gagged and tied the hands of P.W.-2 Sangeetha and Manikandan and confined them to the pooja room by tying them to the window with a saree. The Appellant raised the volume of television and then went to the bedroom where P.W.-1 Prosecutrix was hiding. He pulled the mattress from the cot to the ground and tied her hands and legs and gagged her. He then removed her clothes and raped her.

5. By this time, the deceased managed to loosen the knot and came to the bedroom and saw the Appellant committing rape on the Prosecutrix. He ran to the hall to make a call. On seeing this, the Appellant angrily dragged Manikandan to the toilet and cut his neck with aruval, ultimately causing his death. In the meantime, P.W.-2 Sangeetha, who had also, managed to untie the knot, came and saw the accused cutting the neck of Manikandan with aruval in the toilet. She went inside the pooja room and hid herself. But she had been noticed by the Appellant, who went to the pooja room and cut her neck with the aruval, and thereafter she swooned. The Appellant then went to the bedroom and demanded the jewellery of the prosecutrix. She gave her ear-stud and chain and on further demand, she gave the bureau key and the Appellant took away the other jewels from the bureau.

6. The prosecutrix and P.W.-2 Sangeetha went out and signaled for help. One Kannan (P.W.-13) and Raja (P.W.-7) stopped their scooter and noticed injuries inflicted upon P. Ws.-1 and 2 a