M.R.SHAH, J - (1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such arise out of the common 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 common judgment and order.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common 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 to 3 and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court convicting the original Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (original Accused Nos. 1 and 2), for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC (original Accused Nos. 1 and 3) and for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC (original Accused No. 3) and convicting the original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals.
(3.) As per the case of the prosecution, Accused No. 1 and Accused No.3 had been lovers for more than last three years. 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. 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 conspiracy and solicited the assistance of A2 and subsequently A2 became a party to the conspiracy. 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. The couple started from Chennai on 16.06.2006 to Kerala for visiting Guruvayoor and Munnar. Accused No. 3 with pre-determination passed information to Accused No.1 through mobile phone, whereby to facilitate Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 to pursue/follow the couple. 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. 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 conspirators. 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. It was further the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 committed robbery of Rs. 13,000/- kept inside the pocket of the pants worn by Anandaraman and Accused No.1 committed 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 conspiracy, 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. 1 and 2 had escaped, misrepresented the facts and to create a story as if some unknown persons have committed the robbery and had killed Anandaraman taking advantage of the lonely place. 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. The Circle Police Inspector started investigation. According to the prosecution, thereafter Accused No. 1 and 2 had panicked on seeing a police van proceeding to Kundala Dam - the scene of the crime. They came to know that word had gone around that a crime had been committed and the police were looking for two persons who had allegedly committed that crime. They somehow wanted to leave Munnar to some other place. Thereafter they made enquiries with PW2 and others as to how they could hurriedly leave Munnar. Their conduct allegedly aroused suspicion in the mind of PW2 and his friends. They ensured that A1 and A2 did not escape and informed the police about the suspicious activities of A1 and A2. Thereupon A1 and A2 were taken to the police station. 3.2 During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected incriminating material against the accused. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses. The Investigating Officer found that the clothes worn by A1 to A3 were stained with human blood. They further found that the nail clippings of A1 and A2 had blood marks on them. They recovered MO.6 - tour programme -itinerary of A3 and the deceased in the handwriting of A3 from the possession of A1. During the course of the investigation, the IO recovered, at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and 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 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. On conclusion 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. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore they came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences. ;