Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 95 (MAD)

Manjula (A4) & Others v. State

2003-01-24

A.K.RAJAN, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2003
Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM.J,) This is a case of murder for gain. A.1 to A.4 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 449, 394 r/w 34, 397 and 302 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the respective offences. Aggrieved by that, they have filed four separate appeals in C.A.Nos.323 of 1999, 66 of 2000, 543 of 1999 and 1103 of 1998 respectively. 2. The short facts which led to the conviction are as follows:- (a) A.4 Manjula, the appellant in C.A.No.1103 of 1998, was working as a servant-maid in the house of P.W.1 Rajesh Ashok Zaveri at Trichy. P.W.1 is owning a jewellery shop. P.W.4, Oorvasi is the mother of P.W.1 Rajesh Ashok Zaveri. The deceased Vibha is the wife of P.W.1 Rajesh Ashok Zaveri. A.4 Manjula committed theft of some small amount from P.W.1's house. Therefore, P.W.1 dismissed her from service. A.1 Vellaisamy, the lover of A.4 Manjula along with A.3 Rangadurai @ Rengaraj came to the house of P.W.1 in support of A.4 Manjula and insisted P.W.1 to reappoint A.4 Manjula as she would work properly in future. P.Ws.1 and 4 refused to employ her again in their house. Hence, the accused 1, 3 and 4 had a grudge against P.W.1. A.2 Senthilkumar is the neighbour and friend of A.3 Rangadurai. (b) The occurrence had taken place on 21.11.1997 at about 6.30 p.m. On that day, P.W.1 sent P.W.5 Pragadeesh, who was working in the jewellery shop, to his house for doing some electrical repair work. He came and effected the repairs in the house of P.W.1 and returned back to the jewellery shop at about 5.30 p.m. P.W.5 informed P.W.1 that he finished his repairing work and asked P.W.1 to go and verify the same. So, P.W.1 went to his house at about 6.30 p.m. in his car. While he was getting down from his car and making an entry into his house, he saw A.1 Vellaisamy running out of his house with a plastic bag in his hand. A.2 Senthilkumar also accompanied A.1. (c) On entertaining suspicion, P.W.1 went inside the house and found his wife Vibha, the deceased lying down in a pool of blood with injuries all over her body and gasping for life. His two children were crying. P.W.1 noticed that the almirahs were broken. A.2 Senthilkumar also accompanied A.1. (c) On entertaining suspicion, P.W.1 went inside the house and found his wife Vibha, the deceased lying down in a pool of blood with injuries all over her body and gasping for life. His two children were crying. P.W.1 noticed that the almirahs were broken. On seeing the condition of the deceased Vibha, who was not able to breathe, P.W.1 swiftly took her to Sea Horse Hospital at Trichy. (d) At about 7.35 p.m., P.W.7 Dr.Venkatesan, attached to Sea Horse Hospital, attended the deceased, but while treatment was given, she died. Thereafter, he prepared a medical report Ex.P.6. On being informed that his wife died, P.W.1 went to the Police Station at 8.15 p.m. and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police, Trichy. The Inspector of Police registered a case for the offences under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. Ex.P.36 is the printed F.I.R. (e) Next day, P.Ws. 1 and 4 prepared a list of the jewels and others articles, which were found stolen. Ex.P.2 is the list. In the meantime, on 21.11.1997 at about 9.15 p.m., the Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.37 and observation mahazar Ex.P.3. Then, he went to the hospital, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and examined the witnesses. Ex.P.38 is the inquest report. (f) Meanwhile, P.W.6 Selvaraj, the photographer and P.W.12 Soundarrajan, the finger print expert were brought to the scene. P.W.12 took finger prints and named them as R.1 to R.12. After comparing them with the finger prints of the deceased and other inmates, he found that R.1, R.5, R.7 and R.11 are the finger prints of strangers. He sent a report Ex.P.13 to the Inspector of Police. (g) After the inquest was over, the body of the deceased Vibha was sent for post mortem by the Inspector of Police. P.W.8 Dr. Sakunthala, commenced post mortem on 22.11.1997 at about 7.50 a.m. and found 14 injuries all over the body. P.W.8 issued post mortem certificate Ex.P.8 giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs, about 10 to 16 hours prior to post mortem. (h) On 01.12.1997, the Inspector of Police arrested A.1 Vellaisamy and obtained his confession. The admissible portion is Ex.P.12. Based on his confession, M.O.43 cycle was recovered. (h) On 01.12.1997, the Inspector of Police arrested A.1 Vellaisamy and obtained his confession. The admissible portion is Ex.P.12. Based on his confession, M.O.43 cycle was recovered. A.1 Vellaisamy identified A.4 Manjula and she was arrested. Then, he gave the information about the involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai in the incident. (i) On 02.12.1997, A.2 Senthilkumar was arrested and his confession was recorded. The admissible portion is Ex.P.26. In pursuance of the same, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.2 gold chain. Then, A.2 Senthilkumar took the police to his house and handed over the other stolen articles. M.O.1, series, the cash was recovered along with M.O.4 and M.O.5 bangles, M.O.6 gold coated silver chain, M.O.7 series imitation bangles, M.O.3 Thirumangalyam, M.O.28 suitcase, M.O.29 green pant, M.O.30 black shirt and M.O.31 plastic bag under Ex.P.28 mahazar. From him, M.O.26 knife was also recovered. (j) Thereafter, A.2 Senthilkumar took the police and identified A.3 Rangadurai on the same day. The Inspector of Police arrested A.3 Rangadurai and recorded his confession statement. The admissible portion of his statement is Ex.P.30. From him, M.O.8 model chain dollar, a portion of M.O.1 series, the cash, M.O.32 Wrist watch, M.O.33 Rexene bag, M.O.34 series pants and M.O.35 series T.Shirts were recovered. On his further information that he had given one portion of the cash to P.W.17 Senthilkumar, the Lodge Manager, the Inspector of Police recovered the said cash from him. (k) On 03.12.1997, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.36 ever silver vessel, a portion of the cash M.O.1 series, M.O.37 blood stained shirt and M.O.38 blood stained lungi from A.3 Rangadurai. Since A.3 Rangadurai sustained injury on his right finger, he was sent to P.W.9 Doctor Chitra, who treated him and gave wound certificate Ex.P.9. (l) After the accused were sent for remand, the Inspector of Police requested Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy to conduct identification parade to identify A.2 Senthilkumar. Accordingly, on 11.12.1997, P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate No.VI, conducted the identification parade, wherein P.W.1 identified A.2 Senthilkumar correctly. Ex.P.11 is the identification proceedings. (m) Then, all the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. It was found out from Ex.P.24 serologist's report that the blood group found in M.O.38 Lungi, recovered from A.3 Rangadurai and M.O.26 Knife recovered from A.2 Senthilkumar tallied with the blood group of the deceased Vibha. Ex.P.11 is the identification proceedings. (m) Then, all the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. It was found out from Ex.P.24 serologist's report that the blood group found in M.O.38 Lungi, recovered from A.3 Rangadurai and M.O.26 Knife recovered from A.2 Senthilkumar tallied with the blood group of the deceased Vibha. After finishing the investigation, the Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against all the accused under Sections 120-B, 302, 394, 397 and 449 I.P.C. (n) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined,Exs.P.1 to P.39 were filed and M.Os.1 to 43 were marked. (o) When A.1 Vellaisamy was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he was not involved in the incident and he had no acquaintance with other accused. Further, he stated that he surrendered before the Karur Police Station on 24.11.1997 itself. When A.2 to A.4 were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime. (p) The trial Court, after analysing the evidence available on record, found all the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged and convicted them thereunder. Assailing the same, these four appeals have been filed by A.1 to A.4 separately. 3. Mr. A.S.Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the first accused would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 implicating A.1 Vellaisamy stating that he was found near the scene of occurrence, would not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences charged, especially when none of the stolen articles had been recovered from him. It is also argued that from Ex.P.6 medical report, it is clear that P.W.1 had stated to the Doctor that the deceased was assaulted only by 'a known person'. 4. According to Mr. V.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the second accused, the culprits must be P.W.5 Pragadeesh and one Rajesh Kanna, who came to the house at the relevant time for effecting electrical repair work and non-examination of the female child, who was the eye witness to the occurrence, would affect the prosecution case. 5. It is contended by Mr. G.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the third accused that mere recovery of some stolen articles would not be sufficient to find A.3 Rangadurai guilty of the offences of murder and robbery. 6. Mr. 5. It is contended by Mr. G.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the third accused that mere recovery of some stolen articles would not be sufficient to find A.3 Rangadurai guilty of the offences of murder and robbery. 6. Mr. C.R.Malarvannan, representing Mr.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the fourth accused would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who speak about the conspiracy hatched by the accused including A.4 Manjula, is so artificial and even assuming that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is true, the same may not be sufficient to connect A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy. 7. We have heard Mr. E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in respect of all these submissions. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for parties and meticulously analysed the materials available on record. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that two months prior to the incident, P.W.1, who is the jewellery shop owner, dismissed his servant-maid A.4 Manjula from service, since she committed theft of some money from his house. A.1 Vellaisamy, who is the lover of A.4 Manjula and A.3 Rangadurai, the neighbour of A.4 Manjula came in support of A.4 Manjula and quarrelled with P.W.1, asking him to take her back for continuing as servant-maid in his house. Both P.W.1 and his mother P.W.4 refused to take her back. This made all the accused to have a grudge over the family of P.W.1. Therefore, A.1 to A.4 hatched a conspiracy in the house of A.4 Manjula and in pursuance of the same, A.1 to A.3 committed robbery and murder of the deceased, the wife of P.W.1 in his house. 10. Usually, P.W.1 leaves the house at 9.30 a.m. for jewellery shop and comes back for the lunch at 1.30 p.m. After taking some rest, he will again start at 3.30 p.m. and come back home only at 9.30 p.m. However, on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 sent P.W.5 to do some electrical repair work in his house in the afternoon. Accordingly, P.W.5 came and did the electrical work till 5.30 p.m. At that time, the accused 1 to 3 came there and found that P.W.5 and another were inside the house. Accordingly, P.W.5 came and did the electrical work till 5.30 p.m. At that time, the accused 1 to 3 came there and found that P.W.5 and another were inside the house. After noticing that P.W.5 and another had gone out, they entered into the house of P.W.1 and mercilessly attacked the deceased Vibha, the young wife of P.W.1 with M.O.26 knife before the very eyes of the crying two children, broke the almirahs, took away the cash and jewels and then sped away. 11. Unusually, P.W.1 came to the house at 6.00 p.m. to verify whether the electrical work had been properly done and saw A.1 Vellaisamy with a plastic bag, coming out of his house and running from there accompanied by A.2 Senthilkumar. This created a suspicion in the mind of P.W.1. Therefore, P.W.1 entered inside the house and to his shock, he found that the victim, his wife Vibha was lying down in a pool of blood with injuries all over her body and gasping for life. Immediately, he took her to the hospital, where she was declared dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police. In the complaint, he specifically mentioned that he saw A.1 Vellaisamy, running from the scene of occurrence and that he was accompanied by another person. 12. After registering the complaint, the Inspector of Police took up investigation and arrested A.1 Vellaisamy. On the confession given by A.1 Vellaisamy, the other accused were arrested. Though A.4 Manjula was arrested on the same day, no recovery was made from her. However, from A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai, cash and jewels were recovered. These jewels were subsequently identified by P.Ws.1 and 4. The blood stained pant, lungi and T.shirt were also recovered from A.2 and A.3. Ultimately, it was found that the blood group of the deceased tallied with the blood group of the blood stain found in M.O.26 knife as well as in M.O.38 lungi. 13. P.W.12 Soundarrajan, finger print expert, who took the finger prints on 21.11.1997 at the scene of occurrence, gave a report stating that the finger prints of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai were found tallied with the finger prints taken from the scene of occurrence. So on these materials, the trial Court found all the accused guilty of the offences. 14. P.W.12 Soundarrajan, finger print expert, who took the finger prints on 21.11.1997 at the scene of occurrence, gave a report stating that the finger prints of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai were found tallied with the finger prints taken from the scene of occurrence. So on these materials, the trial Court found all the accused guilty of the offences. 14. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case. The only eye witness is the child aged about five years, which was not examined. P.W.1 as well as the Inspector of Police gave explanation as to why the child was not examined in Court. According to P.Ws.1 and 4 as well as the Inspector of Police, whenever the child was asked about the occurrence, she immediately began to cry. Therefore, non examination of the child of five years old, would not affect the case of the prosecution if the other materials placed by the prosecution before the Court are credit-worthy. 15. It is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish each circumstance clearly and those circumstances must be such that they should complete the chain without any missing link. The said circumstances, should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused alone without giving room for any other hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. 16. In the light of the above principle, let us now analyse the materials against each of the accused. 17. As far as A.1 Vellaisamy is concerned, P.W.1, in the earlier document viz. Ex.P.1, specifically mentioned that A.l carrying a plastic bag, was found running away from the house of P.W.1 accompanied by another person. He also clearly stated that A.1 Vellaisamy is the lover of A.4 Manjula, who was his former servant-maid. 18. According to P.W.20, the sub Inspector of Police, A.1 Vellaisamy was arrested on 01.12.1997. It is quite strange on the part of A.1 Vellaisamy to have stated before the Court, while being questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that he had nothing to do with the incident and however, he voluntarily surrendered before the Karur Police on 24.11.1997 itself and he was brought to the Police Station at Trichy on 01.12.1997. 19. It is quite strange on the part of A.1 Vellaisamy to have stated before the Court, while being questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that he had nothing to do with the incident and however, he voluntarily surrendered before the Karur Police on 24.11.1997 itself and he was brought to the Police Station at Trichy on 01.12.1997. 19. According to the prosecution, A1 was arrested only on 01.12.1997 and only on his information through Ex.P.12, the admissible portion of the confession statement, they came to know about the involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai. But for the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy, who was arrested on 01.12.1997, the involvement of A.2 and A.3 would not have been known to the Inspector of Police. Only on the said information, the Inspector of Police arrested A.2 and A.3 on 02.12.1997 and recovered stolen articles as well as cash from both of them on 02.12.1997 and 03.12.1997. Therefore, the materials available on record as against A.1 Vellaisamy would clinchingly prove that A.1 to A.3 went to the house of P.W.1 and when P.W.1 was not available in the house, attacked the deceased Vibha and after inflicting several injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, broke open the almirahs and took away the cash and jewels. 20. As indicated above, both in the written submission and in the answer given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., A.1 Vellaisamy stated that he surrendered on 24.11.1997 before the Karur Police. There is no reason adduced by him, as to why he surrendered before the Karur Police on 24.11.1997. Admittedly, his name had been figured as the first accused in Ex.P.1, which was registered on 21.11.1997. The explanation given in the written submission for his surrender is that the Karur Police told him that they would only interrogate him for some days and then release him. This belated explanation would not be of any use to hold that he would not have participated in the occurrence. On the other hand, the fact that A.1 himself surrendered before the Police, would indicate his involvement. 21. Let us now come to the case, which relates to A.2 Senthilkumar. As noted above, only on the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy, A.2 Senthilkumar was arrested on 02.12.1997 by the Inspector of Police in the presence of P.W.16 Mohan. A confession was recorded from him. 21. Let us now come to the case, which relates to A.2 Senthilkumar. As noted above, only on the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy, A.2 Senthilkumar was arrested on 02.12.1997 by the Inspector of Police in the presence of P.W.16 Mohan. A confession was recorded from him. Ex.P.26 is the admissible portion of the confession. From him, M.O.2 gold chain was recovered under Ex.P.25. Thereafter, he took the police to his house and handed over a portion of M.O.1 series, cash of Rs.1,96,200/-. Apart from that, M.O.3 Thirumangalyam, M.O.4 and M.O.5 bangles, M.O.6 gold coated silver chain, M.O.7 series imitation bangles, M.O.28 Old suitcase, M.O.29 pant, M.O.30 T.shirt and M.O.31 plastic bag were recovered under Ex.P.28, attested by P.W.16 Mohan. 22. Then, A.2 Senthilkumar took the police to Kudamurity Bridge and pointed out M.O.26 knife, which was hidden under a bush. The same was recovered under Ex.P.29. Thereafter, he took the police and identified A.3 Rangadurai and subsequently, A.3 Rangadurai was arrested. Then, the Inspector of Police requested P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy to arrange for an identification parade in respect of A.2 Senthilkumar, as he was not known earlier to P.W.1. Accordingly, on 11.12.1997, P.W.10 conducted an identification parade, in which P.W.1 identified A.2 Senthilkumar correctly for three times. Ex.P.11 is the identification proceedings. 23. Then, his finger prints were taken and sent for opinion from P.W.12. P.W.12 Soundararajan sent a report Ex.P.17 stating that the finger print marked as R.11 is identical to the finger prints of A.2 Senthilkumar. When A2 was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he admitted that the finger prints were taken from him in the presence of the Magistrate. P.Ws. 1 and 4 also identified the jewels and cash as that of their own. So, these materials also would clearly show the direct involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar in the offences. 24. Let us now discuss the evidence against A.3 Rangadurai. As noticed earlier, on 02.12.1997, he was arrested by the Inspector of Police, on being pointed out by A.2 Senthilkumar. From him, a confession was recorded. Ex.P.30 is the admissible portion of his confession. He also handed over M.O.8 cutting model chain to the Inspector of Police, who recovered the same under Ex.P.31 in the presence of P.W.16 Mohan and P.W.17 Davood Khan. The Inspector of Police also recovered a portion of M.O.1 series cash Rs.20,000/- and M.O.32 wrist watch under Ex.P.31. Ex.P.30 is the admissible portion of his confession. He also handed over M.O.8 cutting model chain to the Inspector of Police, who recovered the same under Ex.P.31 in the presence of P.W.16 Mohan and P.W.17 Davood Khan. The Inspector of Police also recovered a portion of M.O.1 series cash Rs.20,000/- and M.O.32 wrist watch under Ex.P.31. Apart from that, he recovered M.O.33 Rexene bag, M.O.34 series pants and M.O.35 series T.shirts from the Lodge where A.3 stayed, under Ex.P.32. A.3 had also given an information that a portion of M.O.1 series, cash of Rs.10,000/- was given to P.W.17 Senthilkumar, the Lodge Manager. From P.W.17, the said sum of Rs.10,000/- was recovered under Ex.P.33. 25. The next day, i.e. on 03.12.1997, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.36 and also the other portion of M.O.1 series, cash of Rs.1,47,500/- from A.3 Rangadurai. Apart from that, he recovered M.O.38 blood stained lungi and M.O.37 blood stained full hand shirt under Ex.P.34. The finger prints of A.3 Rangadurai were taken and sent to P.W.12 for opinion. P.W.12, after comparing his finger prints with the finger prints taken from the scene of occurrence, found that R.1, R.5 and R.7 were identical to the finger prints of A.3 Rangadurai. Apart from that, the jewels recovered from him, were identified by P.Ws.1 and 4. The blood group found in M.O.26 knife and M.O.38 Lungi was analysed and the blood group found in M.O.38 lungi was found to be 'B' group, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased as per the Serologist's report Ex.P.24. 26. It is further noticed that at the time of arrest of A.3 Rangadurai, he had an injury on his right finger and the Inspector of Police after making recovery, sent him to P.W.9 Dr.Chitra for giving treatment. P.W.9 examined him and gave a wound certificate finding that there was a fracture on the finger. According to the evidence of P.W.9, A.3 Rangadurai told her that he sustained injury due to fall in the bath-room on 30.11.1997. This would show that the Inspector of Police has done his duty properly and when he noticed the injury on his finger, he sent him to the hospital to give proper treatment for the said injury sustained on 30.11.1997, i.e., the date prior to the date of his arrest. This would show that the Inspector of Police has done his duty properly and when he noticed the injury on his finger, he sent him to the hospital to give proper treatment for the said injury sustained on 30.11.1997, i.e., the date prior to the date of his arrest. These materials would clearly indicate that A.3 Rangadurai had also involved along with other accused in the incident in question. 27. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 4 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 and also by the medical testimony of P.W.8, the Doctor. The evidence of P.Ws.16, 17 and 20 clearly indicates that A.1 to A.3, after committing murder, took away the jewels and cash and ran away from the scene with the booty and after their arrest, the properties stolen were recovered. Under those circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to hold that the reasonings for conviction given by the trial Court, would suffer from any infirmity. 28. With regard to A.4 Manjula, it is contended that she might not be one of the conspirators, since the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is artificial and even assuming that their evidence is true, the same may not connect A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy. 29. On going through the materials as against A.4 Manjula, we find some force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the fourth accused. There is no dispute in the fact that A.4 Manjula was working as servant-maid in the house of P.W.1. A.4 Manjula herself would admit when she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that she was working in the house of P.W.1 for a period of one year. According to P.Ws.1 and 4, A.4 Manjula was dismissed from service, since she committed theft of money. Further, P.Ws.1 and 4 would state that A.1 Vellaisamy and A.3 Rangadurai came to P.W.1 and insisted P.Ws.1 and 4 to take her back. However, P.Ws.1 and 4 did not oblige them. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that A.1 to A.4 had a grudge against P.W.1. As noticed earlier, there are materials to show that A.1 to A.3 alone came to the scene and directly participated in the occurrence. 30. It is not the case of the prosecution that A.4 Manjula was present at the scene of occurrence and participated in the commission of crime, along with other accused. As noticed earlier, there are materials to show that A.1 to A.3 alone came to the scene and directly participated in the occurrence. 30. It is not the case of the prosecution that A.4 Manjula was present at the scene of occurrence and participated in the commission of crime, along with other accused. The only charge against A.4 Manjula is the conspiracy to commit robbery and murder. To establish the same, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined. 31. According to P.Ws.2 and 3, they went to the house of A.4 Manjula on 21.11.1997 at about 1.30 p.m., in order to demand the loan amount of Rs.300/-, which was lent to A.1 Vellaisamy by P.W.3 Murugan. According to P.W.2, at the request of P.W.3, he also accompanied him. Admittedly, it was about 1.30 p.m. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that when they went to the house of A.4 to meet A.1, they saw A.4 Manjula talking to A.1 to A.3 loudly, stating: On noticing that P.Ws.2 and 3 were coming near them, A.4 Manjula stopped it. Then, P.W.3 demanded for the return of the loan amount, for which A.1 Vellaisamy said that he would pay the amount within 2 or 3 days. Then, P.Ws.2 and 3 came out. 32. It is to be stated, in this context, that P.Ws.2 and 3 themselves would admit that next day morning, they saw in the Newspaper that P.W.1's wife was murdered for gain and they suspected the involvement of A.4 Manjula. But however, they did not choose to inform the police. Even according to them, the Police themselves came after ten days and enquired them. Merely because they did not choose to inform the police immediately, we are not inclined to reject the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 on that score, since they might have got their own reasons for not informing the police. 33. However, it is to be considered as to whether the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 even if it is true, would be sufficient to hold that A.4 Manjula had hatched a conspiracy along with the other accused to commit the murder and robbery. As noted above, P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that A.4 Manjula was talking to the other accused in a loud voice and A.1 and A.4 were sitting in the door steps. Admittedly, this conversation did not take place inside the house. As noted above, P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that A.4 Manjula was talking to the other accused in a loud voice and A.1 and A.4 were sitting in the door steps. Admittedly, this conversation did not take place inside the house. If there was really a conspiracy and if A.4 Manjula wanted to be one of the conspirators, there was no necessity to give this information in a loud voice, for the purpose of committing a crime, in an open space, that too, when the others are coming near them. Admittedly, no recovery was made from A.4 Manjula. 34. As a matter of fact, the involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai came to be known only on the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy. It is not the case of the prosecution that A.4 took the police and pointed out A.2 and A.3. A.2 and A.3 were arrested separately only on the information given by A.1. There is no evidence to show that A.4 was also a beneficiary and that any portion of the booty was given to her. 35. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the 4th accused that A.3 is the cousin brother of A.4 Manjula. Merely because there is some relationship between A.4 and A.3, in the absence of any other material connecting A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy to commit the robbery and murder, we are unable to hold that on 21.11.1997 at about 1.30 p.m., the conspiracy was hatched in the house of A.4 Manjula and that A.4 also participated in the conspiracy. 36. In view of the above fact, we are of the considered opinion, that there is no sufficient material for connecting A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy to commit the crime of murder and robbery. Consequently, A.4 Manjula is liable to be acquitted, as she is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, she is acquitted of the charge. 37. In fine, the appeals filed by the Appellants (Accused Nos.1 to 3) in C.A.Nos.323 of 1999, 543 of 1999 and 66 of 2000 are dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court. Accordingly, she is acquitted of the charge. 37. In fine, the appeals filed by the Appellants (Accused Nos.1 to 3) in C.A.Nos.323 of 1999, 543 of 1999 and 66 of 2000 are dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court. The appeal filed by Manjula (Accused No.4) in C.A.No.1103 of 1998 is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on her by the trial Court and she is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by A.4 Manjula is directed to be refunded to her. 38. Before parting with this case, we record our appreciation for the effective submission of Mr. A.S. Chakravarthy, Mr. V.Parthiban and Mr.G.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for A.1 to A.3, appointed by Legal Aid Committee. We also record our full appreciation over the effective investigation conducted in this case by the investigating agency.