The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned companymon judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the respective Accused Nos.
1 2 , for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC original Accused Nos.
1 2 for the offences under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the original accused Nos.
5.3 The learned trial Court ordered that the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to each of the accused shall run companycurrently.
They recovered MO.6 tour programme itinerary of A3 and the deceased in the handwriting of A3 from the possession of A1.
1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals.
It was the further case on behalf of the prosecution that Accused No.3 after the marriage planned with Anandaraman to go to different tourist centres in Kerala under the guise of a honeymoon celebration and disclosed the particulars of such journeys and visits to Accused No.1.
By the companymon impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the appeals.
1 and 2 had escaped, misrepresented the facts and to create a story as if some unknown persons have companymitted the robbery and had killed Anandaraman taking advantage of the lonely place.
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was led by Accused No.3 to a catchment area which afforded opportunity for implementation of the scheme of companyspirators.
1 3 and for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC original Accused No.3 and companyvicting the original Accused Nos.
1 to 3.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, the original Accused Nos.
The first information report was lodged before the police by PW1 Sam Vincent, the driver of the vehicle in which A3 and the deceased had travelled.
On companyclusion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC and Section 379 IPC against the respective Accused Nos.
1 to 3 and has companyfirmed the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court companyvicting the original Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC original Accused Nos.
Thereafter, the learned trial Court companyvicted the original Accused No.1 Anand for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also for the offence under Section 120B and Section 379 of the IPC.
Thereupon A1 and A2 were taken to the police station.
During the companyrse of the investigation, the IO recovered, at the instance of Accused Nos.
They ensured that A1 and A2 did number escape and informed the police about the suspicious activities of A1 and A2.
Accused No.3 led Anandaraman to the Kundala Dam at Munnar place of the offence under the pretext of going tour and thereafter having boating she took Anandaraman to a lonely place and brought about the arrival of first and second accused thereby passing information over mobile phone.
It was further the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 companymitted robbery of Rs.13,000/ kept inside the pocket of the pants worn by Anandaraman and Accused No.1 companymitted robbery of wrist watch valued at Rs.2,000/ and the camera valuing to Rs.10,000/, totalling to Rs.25,000/. As per the case of the prosecution, as part of the companyspiracy, Accused No.3 removed herself the gold chain from her neck and entrusted to Accused No.1 and she herself stained her dress with stain of blood and after being satisfied from message over mobile phone that Accused Nos.
The prosecution also produced on record through witnesses the documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P80.
1 to 3 preferred appeals before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
According to the prosecution, thereafter Accused No.1 2 had panicked on seeing a police van proceeding to Kundala Dam the scene of the crime.
1 2, watch, camera and cash of the deceased and the gold chain of A3, which, according to A3, was taken away from her by force by the unknown miscreants.
The learned trial Court further came to the companyclusion that attempts were made deliberately to mislead others by stating that it was the case of some unknown miscreants to companymit theft robbery of valuable articles which the deceased and A3 were having with them.
The Circle Police Inspector started investigation.
Thereafter, the prosecution submitted the closing pursis.
It was the case on behalf of the accused that they were number in any way responsible for the murder of the deceased Anandaraman and that they had been falsely implicated by the police.
The companyple started from Chennai on 16.06.2006 to Kerala for visiting Guruvayoor and Munnar.
The accused did number adduce any evidence at the stage of defence.
Hence, the present appeals.
It was the case of the prosecution that after the solemnisation of the marriage with a view to live with Accused No.1 after doing away with Anandaraman before 18.06.2006, Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 hatched up a companyspiracy and solicited the assistance of A2 and subsequently A2 became a party to the companyspiracy.
M.Os 1 to 51 series were also marked by the prosecution.
They somehow wanted to leave Munnar to some other place.
Accused No.3 with predetermination passed information to Accused No.1 through mobile phone, whereby to facilitate Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 to pursue follow the companyple.
The Investigating Officer found that the clothes worn by A1 to A3 were stained with human blood.
3.1 According to the prosecution, AI and A2 who had reached there found the opportunity and caused the death of the deceased by ligature strangulation with MO.7 Camera Strip and smothering.
3.2 During the companyrse of the investigation, the Investigating Officer companylected incriminating material against the accused.
The learned trial Court also came to the companyclusion that the murder of the deceased Anandaraman was executed by A1 and A2 in the presence of A3 at the scene of the crime Kundala dam using MO7 Camera Strip.
In their 313 statements, the accused had taken up the defence of total denial.
Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.
Thereafter they made enquiries with PW2 and others as to how they companyld hurriedly leave Munnar.
As per the case of the prosecution, Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 had been lovers for more than last three years.
P.C. were recorded.
However, Exhibit D1 was marked by A2 when PW29 was examined.
The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the offence of companyspiracy under Section 120B between A1 and A3.
But, according to them, the relationship had been put to an end in 2004 and that thereafter, A3 had willingly married with the deceased.
They further found that the nail clippings of A1 and A2 had blood marks on them.
Their companyduct allegedly aroused suspicion in the mind of PW2 and his friends.
They came to know that word had gone around that a crime had been companymitted and the police were looking for two persons who had allegedly companymitted that crime.
The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the companycerned witnesses.
They denied any companytact between them after 2004.
The marriage of the Accused No.3 was solemnised on 7.6.2006 with one Anandaraman the deceased in Chennai against the will of Accused No.3.
The accused pleaded number guilty and therefore they came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences.
A3 filed a detailed written statement.
The deceased, at the scene of the crime, had some scalp hairs of the miscreants within his fingers, which came to be seized by the police while preparing the inquest report.
To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined in all 40 witnesses.
It appears that A1 and A3 did number dispute their relationship.
In fact, they did admit their relationship.
R.SHAH, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.02.16 120937 IST Reason As companymon question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such arise out of the companymon impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this companymon judgment and order.
