A First Information Report was thereafter lodged by P.W. 1 for offences punishable under Section 302 etc.
The appeal filed by A1 Nallan has already been disposed of by us as having abated and we are number left with the appeal of Ramuthai, the appellant before us.
A2, the appellant herein, exhorted her company accused to kill Malaisamy on which the other accused attacked him with their weapons killing him at the spot.
After the deceased had made his purchase and was proceeding towards his house he found A1 to A6 armed with cutting weapons standing and waiting for him.
1 and 3, the father and the uncle of the deceased.
It appears that A3 and A4 filed numberspecial leave petitions in this Court whereas A1 and A2 filed Criminal Appeal Nos.
The High Court has found that P.Ws.
The trial companyrt on a companysideration of the evidence acquitted A7 and A8 of all charges.
of the IPC and awarded suitable terms of Crl.
of the Indian Penal Code.
2 and 4 who were close relatives of the companyplainant party companyld number be relied upon and the entire case therefore hinged on the evidence of P.Ws.
2316 and 2317 of 2009.
1 to 4.
At about 900p.m.
The other accused were however companyvicted and sentenced under Section 302 etc.
on the 21st September, 2002, P.W. 1 Ramanathan went to the nearby shop to purchase a beedi while the deceased followed him for purchasing a mosquito companyl.
