The appellants hereinafter referred to as A1 to A5 for the sake of companyvenience.
PW.2, a resident of Gorimedu went to a well in the village to drink water and to his utter dismay found a body of a male floating in the well.
4 and 5 at 6 p.m. At about 10 p.m., when PW.7 alighted at Gorimedu from a bus, saw A.1 to A.5 and the deceased proceeding towards south from numberth and an electric lamp was burning at that place.
P.C. by preparing express reports.
The deceased is the son of PW 4.
P.1 and P.2 were handed over to P.W.16, the writer of Balaviduthi Police Station, who registered a case in crime No.
The other accused also quarrelled with the deceased for marrying Nallangal.
P.W.1 prepared Ex.
A.2 and A.3 are companysins and A.4 is the son of maternal aunt of A.2 and A.3.
193 of 1989 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
The deceased was number seen alive thereafter.
P.W.4 questioned them as to why they are taking the deceased.
The witnesses, the deceased Magamuni and accused 1 to 5 were residing at Mathagiri village.
When P.W.4 was at the shandy along with his son, Magamuni, the deceased in the case and his daughter P.W.5, accused 1 to 4 went there and asked deceased to accompany them.
PW 11 is the companysin of the deceased.
Said Nallangal was in illicit relationship with A.1 and companytinued to have the said relationship with A.1 even after the marriage.
This is said to be the motive for the incident which took place.
Immediately, he went to the house of his elder brother and informed him who advised him to lay a companyplaint with the village Administrative Officer.
The accused told him that they wanted to go for hunting.
At about 4 a.m. on 11.6.1989, P.W.8 was at the bus stop for boarding a bus and he saw A.1 to A.5 companying towards numberth.
P.2, his report and handed over the same to his servant with a direction to hand over both the documents at the police station.
When he questioned them, they told him that they are returning after hunting.
P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.12.
The deceased married one Nallangal about four months prior to the date of incident.
A.1 is related to A.5.
3 10 are also related to the deceased.
PW.2 went to the house of PW 1 the village Administrative officer, Mathagril village and gave a statement which was reduced into writing which stands marked as Ex.
After the investigation was companypleted charge sheet was filed, the accused persons abjured guilt and therefore, they were put on trial.
A.1 questioned the deceased as to why he has married Nallangal and he was also beaten by A.1.
P.W.7 questioned them as to where they were going, for which A.1 to A.5 replied that they were going for hunting and they were in possession of sticks.
The deceased in the companypany of A.1 to A.4 was seen by P.Ws.
P.1 in the case.
PW 5 is the younger sister of the deceased and PW 8 is the paternal uncle of PW 4.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows Allegation was that between 10 P.M. on 10.8.1989 and 4 M. on 11.8.1999, the appellants murdered one Mugamuni hereinafter referred to as the deceased by strangling him to death and threw the dead body into a well to screen themselves from the offence.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Trichi.
