On 27th July, 2002 i.e. two days after the marriage proposal was made, Ramesh PW9 was employed to paint the house of Lakshmi PW3 when he saw the deceased Senthil Kumar and Usha embracing one another in one of the rooms of the house.
On the following day, i.e. 28th July, 2002 PWs.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under The appellants, namely, Shanmugam, Velu and Sampath Kumar were close friends of the deceased Senthil Kumar and Palani PW7 .
Appellant Velu has a younger sister, named, Usha who, according to the prosecution story, had fallen in love with the deceased Senthil Kumar and wanted to marry him.
Aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence imposed upon them, the accused person preferred Criminal Appeal No.1008/2007 before the High Court of Madras which appeal has been dismissed thereby companyfirming the companyviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
Senthil was rushed to the hospital but died en route.
In July 2002, appellant Velu appears to have companye on leave from his army services and during this period he and his mother Balammal are said to have informed Murugambal PW2 mother of the deceased, sister Lakshmi PW3 and her husband Selvam PW1 that they had decided to give Usha in marriage to the deceased Senthil Kumar.
After companypletion of the investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the appellants accusing them of companymitting the murder of Senthil Kumar.
The Sessions Judge relied heavily upon the deposition of Palani PW7 and the letter Exh.
According to Ramesh PW9 , even the appellant Shanmugam saw Usha and Senthil Kumar in a romantic embrace.
P.C. Independent of the said document, the High Court felt that the evidence on record formed a companyplete chain of circumstances that unerringly pointed to the guilt of the appellants.
Further discussion regarding the marriage was, however, deferred till the passing of the Tamil month Adi, companysidered inauspicious for finalisation of matrimonial alliance.
The appellant Shanmugam was also, according to the prosecution, one of the suitors of Usha and had a one sided affection for her.
P 22 allegedly written by appellant Shanmugam to the mother of the deceased, Murugambal PW2 accusing appellant Velu to be the person responsible for the death of the deceased.
The appellants were then companymitted to the Sessions Judge, where they pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution case is that Palani PW7 was threatened by the appellants number to disclose to anyone regarding anything for otherwise they would kill him also.
The Sessions Judge based his companyviction primarily on the strong motive which appellants Shanmugam and Velu had to do away with the deceased due to his love affair with Usha.
Appellant Velu did number approve of the said relationship and had asked appellant Shanmugan to companyvey to the deceased Senthil Kumar to keep off Usha or else he would break his hands and legs.
At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove its case.
He woke up to see the appellant Shanmugam standing near the head of the deceased and the remaining two appellants also standing close by.
The present appeals assail the companyrectness of the said judgment as numbericed above.
The appellant Shanmugam also used to sleep with them but for some reason he did number turn up to do so on that day.
1 to 3, their neighbour and the appellant Shanmugam went to a theatre to see a movie and retuned home around 9.30 p.m. While Selvam PW1 , Murugambal PW2 and Lakshmi PW3 retired to bed inside the house after dinner, the deceased Senthil Kumar and Palani PW7 slept as usual in the verandah of the house.
Selvam PW1 went to the police station and lodged an oral companyplaint.
At about 2.45 a.m. on the night intervening 28th and 29th July, 2002, Palani PW7 heard the sound of a stone being thrown.
The police registered a case under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.
1008 of 2007 filed by the appellants against their companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC has been dismissed and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by the trial Court upheld.
S. THAKUR, J. These appeals by special leave call in question the companyrectness of an order dated 30th April 2009 passed by the High Court of Madras, whereby Criminal Appeal No.
