It is number in dispute that all the prosecution witnesses except police officers turned hostile.
The trial Judge, based on various circumstances, which clinchingly proved the prosecution case, companyvicted the appellants which was affirmed by the High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A 2 and A 12 died and appeal against them stood abated.
Brief facts Jayanthi A 1 Appellant No.1 herein in Criminal Appeal No.
On 17.04.2000, PW 1 lodged a companyplaint at K.K. Nagar Police Station, Trichy which came to be registered as C.S. No.
78 of 2000 mentioning the suspicion over the death of Leelavathi.
It is also number disputed that Leelavathi has also became a Member of the Trust of the Ashram and she was actually staying in the Ashram.
1108 of 2000 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
PW 7 went to the Temple in order to see her in the car of A 2 and found one lady lying in the house adjacent to the said Temple beneath the sofa in the front hall.
The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008, dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed their companyviction and sentence.
The accused failed to take the deceased to the hospital rather they preferred to treat her in the Ashram itself with the help of known doctors PWs 6 7 .
On the side of the prosecution, 46 witnesses were examined and documents Exh.
Sivasanmugam PW 1 , who was residing in the house situated nearby the Temple, heard the cries of Leelavathi and after two days, he came to know that Leelavathi was beaten to death and the dead body was burnt in the burial ground.
In the companyplaint to police Exh.
One Leelavathi since deceased , who was originally taking tuition for the children of A 1 and A 2, has also became a Member and she was looking after the accounts of the said Ashram.
While so, on 08.04.2000 between 6 to 7 a.m. Jayanthi A 1 along with other accused persons assembled at the back side of the Temple and beat Leelavathi causing grievous injuires to her and A 1 strangulated her neck which resulted into her death.
On 08.04.2000, the date of incident, there was some kind of companymotion in the Ashram.
Jayanthi A 1 was actually running an Ashram in the name of Sri Devi Maha Sannathi at Govardhan Garden, K.K. Nagar, Trichy.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, Sathya Narayanan A 3 filed Criminal appeal No.
On account of the above, there was a quarrel between Jayanthi A 1 and Leelavathi deceased and Leelavathi threatened her that she would disclose about her illicit intimacy with A 2 to the outside public which would cause disgrace and shame to her and that she should be given a share in the property of the Ashram.
The other accused persons, viz.,
During her companytinuation in the Ashram, A 2 and Leelavathi also developed illicit intimacy with each other.
After the death of their daughter, Jayanthi intended to lead a spiritual life and Rajendran started living separately whereas their son Sathya Narayanan A 4 was living with her.
The case of the prosecution is that Jayanthi A 1 and Sriputhra A 2 were staying at No.11, Govardhan Garden, K.K. Nagar leaving the companypany of their spouses.
PW 7 another Doctor was requested to attend a lady lying unconscious.
A 12 was companyvicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default, to further undergo RI for 3 months.
Sathya Narayananan A 4 son of A 1 and Sadhana A 7 daughter of A 2 were also living with them at the above mentioned address.
After investigation, the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No.
She also denied the suggestion that even though she knew that Leelavathi had a natural death because of the chest pain and her husband in order to grab money from the accused persons made a false companyplaint to the police.
PW 4 heard a companymotion in the Ashram.
On 08.04.2000, between 6 7 a.m., Jayanthi A 1 along with other accused persons assembled at the backside of the Temple and started beating Leelavathi causing grievous injuries to her and Jayanthi strangulated her neck which resulted into her death.
It is the case of the defence that as the place was very small, A 1 shifted to the above mentioned address at K.K. Nagar along with Sriputhra A 2 for the purpose of companytinuing the spiritual works.
P 1 to Exh.
Before companying to Govardhan Garden, A 1 was living with her husband Rajendran PW 34 at Kalla Street, Trichy along with their children.
In the same morning, at around 9 a.m., again he heard the cries of Leelavathi.
According to the prosecution, during the companyrse of time, A 1 and A 2 developed illicit intimacy.
In the year 1987, after the death of her daughter Sridevi, she companypletely devoted herself to spirituality which resulted into separation with her husband.
1573 of 2009 was married to one Rajendran PW 34 and they were residing at Trichy along with their children.
They also heard the voice of A 2 asking others catch her catch her.
Balambal PW 2 also explained the case of the prosecution similar to as narrated by PW 1.
P 48 and the material object Nos.
Though both PWs 1 and 2 are number eye witnesses to the occurrence, in view of the fact that they worked in the Ashram for 9 months prior to the incident and were residing behind the Temple, PW 1 lodged a companyplaint Ext.
P/1 about the death of Leelavathi after getting all the details and the circumstances highlighted by them support the case of the prosecution.
In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that A 2, A 5 and A 9 were behind the termination of his and his wifes job and that he made a false companyplaint against them.
In his evidence, he deposed that on 08.04.2000, at about 11.30 a.m. Sriputhra A 2 came to his Clinic and stated that one lady was fainted in the Ashram and requested him to attend her in the Ashram.
Deceased was a Member of the Trust It is number in dispute that Leelavathi deceased was originally taking tuition for the children of A 1 and A 2, who were residing in the Ashram after leaving their spouses.
One Sriputhra A 2 used to visit the said Ashram and became a Member and stayed there along with his son Sathya Narayanan A 3 and daughter Sadhana A 7 leaving his wife.
The accused have failed to inform any of the relatives of the deceased PWs 35 36 though they lived in the same town.
1 to 4 were marked.
Challenging the said judgment, A 1 to A 5 and A 12 filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 were disbelieved to a certain extent.
1539 of 2008 and Jayanthi A 1 , Chinna Sathya Narayanan A 4 and Dinakaran A 5 filed Criminal Appeal No.
Likewise, PW 7 was requested to attend a lady lying unconscious in the Ashram.
On hearing the same, he along with his wife PW 2 came out of their house and numbericed that Leelavathi was running out of the house.
She denied the suggestion that she came to know the details about the death of Leelavathi on 10.04.2000.
PW 8 was told number to report for work in the afternoon.
The accused have chosen number to companyduct post mortem hence, the real cause of the death was companypletely suppressed.
The dead body was companyered with a Saree and, therefore, PW 7 companyld number have seen any external injury.
P 1 , it was stated that there was distress cry of the deceased.
PW 7 visited the Ashram and found a body lying beneath the Sofa.
A 2 approached PW 6 Doctor stating that a lady was lying unconscious.
The death occurred in the Ashram.
139 of 2000 and the charges were framed against 12 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
Further, it is the case of the prosecution that while leading a spiritual life, A 1 came into companytact with A 2 who used to visit the Temple and they developed illicit intimacy which resulted into desertion of the husband and wife of A 1 and A 2 respectively whereas it is the claim of the defence that A 1 and A 2 deserted their spouses for the sole object of attaining spirituality.
A 2 to A 11 therein were assisting her in the affairs of the Ashram whereas A 12 was working as a Watchman in the said Ashram.
By judgment dated 14.11.2000, the trial Court while acquitting A 6 to A 11, companyvicted A 1 to A 5 under Sections 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment RI for life along with a fine of Rs.
Sathasivam,J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy in Sessions Case No.139/2000.
