IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.02.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2007 Ramesh .. Appellant -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Inspector of Police Tindivanam Police Station Villupuram District Crime No.928/96 .. Respondent Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 10.1.2007 made in S.C.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri. For Appellant :: Mr.K.V.Sridharan For Respondent :: Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public Prosecutor. - JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.)
The appellant is A.1. He was put up on trial along with A.2 in S.C.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. By the judgment dated 10.1.2007, he was found guilty for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3 read with 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 3 read with 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The learned trial judge however acquitted A.2.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and he is a resident of Nathamedu at Tindivanam. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the daughter of the second accused and the sister of the first accused and the marriage between deceased and P.W.4 took place about eight years prior to the date of occurrence. From the date of marriage, both the deceased and P.W.4 were living separately in a house. There was often quarrel between the husband and wife and therefore P.W.4 left the marital house to join with her parents.
3. In order to bring back his wife P.W.4, the deceased went to his in-laws house at 12 to 12.30 midnight on 12/13.4.2005. When he requested his wife to come back with him, the second accused shouted at the deceased as to how he could come and call back his wife when she did not like to live with him. As the quarrel persisted, A.2 asked his son A.1 to pick up the Gun belonging to him and shoot the deceased. Hence the first accused/the appellant herein shot the deceased on his chest followed by P.W.4, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and one Padma, who was also residing there, attacking the deceased with stick on his head. Though the deceased tried to escape from the scene, due to pellet injuries on his chest, he could not run and fell down and ultimately died on the spot. The above incident was witnessed by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 – a neighbour and P.W.5. P.W.1 thereafter went to Tindivanam Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P.28 to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.554 of 2005 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 I.P.C. Read with Section 25(1-B)(a) and 3(1) of the Arms Act. He prepared Ex.P.29, the printed First Information Report and submitted to Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam and sent the other copies to his Superior Officers.
4. On receipt of the copy of the First Information Report, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 13.4.2005 and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.30 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.31 in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 11. He also seized blood stained earth – M.O.10 and sample earth – M.O.11 under Ex.P.32, in the presence of the same witnesses and P.W.9, the Scientific Assistant, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Villupuram. He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and Ex.P.33 is the inquest report. At that time he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. Then he sent Ex.P.5 requisition to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tindivanam though P.W.13 to conduct post-mortem on the body of the deceased. In the same requisition he has also mentioned to preserve the pellets found in the body of the deceased as well s Viscera for chemical examination.
5. P.W.8, the Senior Civil Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam on receipt of Ex.P.5 requisition conducted post mortem at about 1.00 p.m. on the body of the deceased, which was identified by P.W.13, the Head Constable. P.W.9 took M.Os.6 and 7 photographs on the chest portion of the deceased and had advised the Medical Officer to collect the tissues in and around the pellet injuries for analysis. P.W.8 noted the following injuries:-
“External Injuries:-
(1) A pellet injury scatterly arranged with about 135 black charred spots each measuring about 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm seen on both sides of the chest wall below the clavicles, about 3 cm below Right and Left clavicles and on right arm; about three in number. The chest wall around the pellet injury is cherry red in colour and a circular zone of echymosis seen around the entrance wound. A Tatoo mark Jayanthi seen on Right side of the chest below clavicles. Fluid blood oozing from entrance wound of pellet injury.
(2) Contusion of about 2 x 1 cm on left parietal region.
Internal Examination:-
Head and Neck: No fracture of skull bones. Membranes intact. Brain about 1400 grams and congested.
Hyoid Bone:- Intact. Thorax:- No fracture of ribs on exploration of pellet injury wound, inter costal muscles were present pierced and teared by numerous pellets and inter costal muscles were charred and reddish in colour about 1500 ml. Of fluid blood (Haemothorax) present in the thoracic cavity. Heart:- Anterior wall of the heart was penetrated by about 8 pellets. On c/s. Clotted blood present in the left chamber of the heart. Lungs:- Right lung about 450 grams and pierced by many pellets and reddish in colour. Left lung about 400 grams and pierced by many pellets and reddish in colour. On c/s of lungs about 20-30 black coloured shots have been recovered and collected for chemical analysis. Some of them were covered by tissues. Abdomen: Stomach: Contained about 100 ml of undigested food particles. Liver:- about 1400 grams on C/s. Congested. Spleen: 175 grams congested on c/s. Kidneys:- 150 grams each, congested on c/s. Small Intestine: Distended with air. Bladder: Empty on C/s. (n.c.) organs were normal. Pelvis: Intact. Spinal Column normal.”
P.W.8 issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.9 with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and irreversible shock due to injuries sustained by him to the chest wall-vital organs lungs and heart about 10 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. After post-mortem P.W.13 received M.O.9, the blood stained lungi which was found on the body of the deceased and handed over the same to P.W.17.
6. P.W.17, sent Ex.P.21 requisition to Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam to send the viscera preserved by P.W.8 for chemical analysis. P.W.15 obtained orders from Judicial Magistrate No.1 and sent the same for chemical analysis through Ex.P.22. Exs.P.6 to P.8 are the Chemical Examiners’ Reports. P.W.17 arrested both the accused at 1.00 p.m. on 13.4.290905 at Tindivanam to Marakkanam Cross Road, through Ex.P.34 Arrest card and examined them in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.12. At that time the first accused gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.3. Then the first accused took P.W.17 and his team along with the witnesses to a lake bund near Narikuravar colony and identified M.Os.5,1,2,3 and 12 and the same were seized under Ex.P.17 in the presence of the same witnesses. From there he took P.W.17 and his team to his house at Narikuravar Colony and produced 650 gm weighing pellets used for the Gun, which was seized under Ex.P.18 in the presence of the same witnesses. Out of 650 grams pellets P.W.17 has taken 50 grams – M.O.4 series for chemical examination and the remaining are M.O.13 series. Then the accused were taken to the police station and sent for judicial remand. P.W.15 is the Head Clerk in Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tindivanam. In his evidence he has deposed that on 25.4.2005 P.W.17 sent Ex.P.23 requisition to subject the case properties for chemical examination and the same were sent thorough Ex.P.24 letter. Ex.P.25 is the Chemical Examiner’s Report and Exs.P.27 and P.8 are the Serologists’ Reports received from the laboratory.
7. P.W.17 submitted a requisition Ex.P.35 on 25.4.2005 to Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam to send M.Os.1 to 4, 6 to 8 for chemical examination. After obtaining orders, he sent the same to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai for chemical examination. P.W.10 is the Scientist Assistant Grade-I and Fire Arms Expert, who after examining the case properties received by him issued Ex.P.8 report. P.W.17 examined P.Ws.8 and 10 on 8.9.2005 and recorded their statements. Then he addressed to the District Collector, Villupuram through the District Superintendent of Police to know whether the accused are having licence to use the Gun. P.W.14 the District Collector, Villupuram District, on receipt of Ex.P.19 requisition from the Superintendent of Police seeking prosecution, after perusing the records and after obtaining opinion from the Assistant Director of Prosecution, accorded Ex.P.20 prosecution Sanction Order under Section 39(3) of the Arms Act to prosecute the accused. P.W.17 also examined P.W.14 and recorded his statement. After completing the investigation, P.W.17 laid the final report against the accused before the Court.
8. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.35 apart from producing M.Os.1 to 13. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure as to the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied the entire case of the prosecution as false. However the learned trial Judge had accepted the case of the prosecution as against A.1/the appellant herein; found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. The learned trial Judge on the other hand did not accept the case of the prosecution in so far as A.2 is concerned and acquitted him. Questioning the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by A.1
9. We have heard Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
10. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel would submit that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 3, who were examined to speak about the occurrence as eye witnesses, is highly doubtful. He would submit that though P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police had deposed that P.W.1, the father of the deceased had lodged the complaint at about 2.30 p.m. on 13.4.2005 and after registering the complaint he obtained his thumb impression, the evidence of P.W.1 is otherwise. According to P.W.1 though he went to the police station and lodged the complaint, he specifically disowns any thumb impression obtained by P.W.16. Therefore the complaint Ex.P.28 had not been established by the prosecution, through the author of the scribe. He would also submit that even the copy of the complaint was not marked through P.W.1. But it was marked only through P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police who, recorded the First Information Report. Neither the complaint nor the evidence of P.W.1 indicate the presence of the other eye witness namely, P.W.3. Hence the learned counsel would submit that it would be highly unreliable to place any conviction on the accused on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1. In so far as the evidence of P.W.3 is concerned, learned counsel would submit that her presence is doubtful, as her presence was not spoken to by P.W.1, the other eye witness. Further even in the inquest report, her presence was not mentioned. Though P.W.3 had spoken about the head injury inflicted on the deceased by P.W.4 and one Padma with stick, the post-mortem Doctor, P.W.8 has reported that there is no such injury on the head. Hence the learned counsel would submit that the presence of P.W.3 in the scene of occurrence is doubtful. Learned counsel would also submit that yet another witness examined on behalf of the prosecution namely, P.W.2 had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, the wife of the deceased was also examined to speak about the occurrence but she also turned hostile. Learned counsel also submits that the opinion of the Forensic Expert as to the finger print of A.1 having not found in the Gun, the use of the Gun by A.1 itself is doubtful. He would also submit that even though P.W.9 had recommended to send the Gun for examination of a finger print expert, the investigating officer had not done so, which throwing serious doubt about the use of the Gun by A.1/the appellant. He would also submit that the Ballistic Expert’s report also does not support the case of the prosecution. In this regard he would draw our attention through the evidence of P.W.10, the Ballistic Expert, where he had stated that there was no evidence that the Gun was fired in close range and he could not see any small particles of explosives in the Gun, if the Gun is fired in the close range. Learned counsel would also argue that the prosecution had failed to establish that M.O.1, the Gun was a prohibited arm to bring home the offence under the provisions of the Arms Act. He would submit that even the District Collector P.W.14 had not stated as to whether the Gun was licenced or unlicenced. In the absence of the same, the Gun cannot be considered to be a prohibited arm and therefore the charge under the provisions of the Arms Act itself is unsustainable.
11. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 should be accepted and for the said statement, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would draw our attention to the fact that though P.W.1 had disowned his thumb impression in the complaint Ex.P.28, he had admitted the contents of the complaint, in his evidence. He had also spoken about the occurrence and had specifically implicated the accused. Learned counsel would also submit that the evidence of P.W.3 has been rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge as she has also deposed of having seen the first accused/appellant shooting at the deceased on his chest. He would further submit that the conduct of inquest is only to find out the cause of death and the mere fact that the name of P.W.3 has not been mentioned in the inquest report would not be a ground to disbelieve her evidence of having seen the occurrence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the arrest and recovery has been established through the attesting witness namely, P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer. Having regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to the occurrence and also as to the specific overt acts caused by A.1 on the deceased coupled with the evidence of P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer as to the recovery of M.O.1, the learned trial Judge had correctly come to the conclusion as to the guilt of the appellant/first accused and therefore had rightly convicted him. Insofar as the submission as to the Arms Act, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the fact remains that the Gun was licenced in favour of A.2 and the same has been unauthorisedly used by A.1. The investigating officer had deposed that he had made an investigation as to whether the Gun was licenced or not, through the District Collector and he received a letter Ex.P.20 from the District Collector stating that the Gun was unlicenced. He would further submit that in the absence of any other evidence, the evidence of the investigating officer can be accepted in this regard.
12. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on either side. Law as to how the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered is laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1976 S.C.C.(Cri.) 160 (SATPAUL vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION) wherein it has been held as follows:-
” Even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the judge finds that in the process the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.”
The Apex Court in the subsequent judgment reported in 2001 S.C.C. Cri. 323 (GURA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN) has also held as follows:-
“It is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. ……In a criminal trial where a prosecution witness is cross examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record altogether. it is for the court of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. In appreciate cases the court can rely upon the part of testimony of such witness if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy.”
The very same view has been taken in the judgments reported in 1976 S.C.C. (Cri.) 527 (Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab) and 2000 S.C.C. Cri. 113 (Raman Bhai @ Naranbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat). Law on the above is also reiterated in the judgment reported in 2006(1) S.C.C. Cri. 661 (RADHA MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH).
“7. …..It is well settled that the evidence of the prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found tobe dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.”
Recently the judgments in Sat Paul’s case and Gura Singh’s case were quoted with approval by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2007(1) S.C.C. Cri.28 (SANTHOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH).
13. Keeping the above Law in mind, the evidence of the hostile witnesses should be considered. The prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 4 as eye witnesses. P.Ws.2 and 4 were examined to speak about the specific overt act said to have been caused by A.1 in firing the deceased on his chest with M.O.1. Both of them have turned hostile and a careful scrutiny of their evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. On the other hand P.W.2 in her re-examination made on behalf of the accused had stated that she heard that the deceased was shot down by one Iyyampettai namely, P.W.1. This evidence of P.W.2 supports the defence taken by the accused during the trial wherein even P.W.1 was questioned that it was P.W.1, who had fired the deceased and the case was foisted on the accused to save him. Hence the evidence of P.W.2 no way supports the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, the another hostile witness is none other than the wife of the deceased. Though she has been examined to speak about the actual specific over act attributed to A.1, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 had in fact stated that P.W.4 had also assaulted the deceased indicating her presence at the time of occurrence. However her evidence is otherwise, not only having seen A.1 shooting the deceased but also the prosecution theory that she had also attacked the deceased, is falsified, as a necessary consequence the evidence of P.W.2 is also false.
14. This leaves us, the remaining two witnesses namely, P.W.1 and P.W.3. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, P.W.1 had specifically stated in his evidence that no thumb impression was obtained by P.W.16. Of course the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that P.W.1 had not disowned the contents of Ex.P.28 and therefore his evidence can be accepted. We could have accepted the said statement, in the event, P.W.1 had come to the court and accepted the contents of the complaint as such. But in the given case, he had completely contradicted the evidence of P.W.16 by stating that he had not even put any thumb impression on the complaint. In any event, the complaint that bears the thumb impression of P.W.1 lacks credibility. While we refer to the above, we may reasonably come to the conclusion that the contents of the complaint Ex.P.28 also cannot be taken into consideration. In that context the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that insofar as the contents are accepted, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be discarded, cannot be accepted. It has also been settled that if the genesis of the First Information Report itself is doubtful or fabricated, the entire prosecution case must be disbelieved. This Law is held by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1980 S.C.C. Cri. 985 (MURUDANAL AUGUSTI v. STATE OF KERALA). If the evidence of P.W.1 is eschewed from consideration then we have left only with the evidence of P.W.3.
15. The presence of P.W.3 is highly doubtful for the following reasons:-
Though P.W.1, who is said to have lodged the complaint immediately after the occurrence has not referred the name of P.W.3 having present at the time of occurrence in the complaint, yet, for the first time in court P.W.1 makes an attempt to make an improvement by stating that she was also present at the scene of occurrence. Secondly the inquest was conducted immediately after the occurrence and during the course of inquest, the presence of P.W.3 was not noticed by the investigating officer. Of course the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would be right in submitting that the inquest is only for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death and not for any other purpose. But to find out as to the presence of a witness, the reference to the name of the witness may throw some light in support of the prosecution, as to the evidence spoken to by the said witness of having witnessed the occurrence. Only to that limited extent, we are inclined to consider the evidence of the investigating officer, who conducted the inquest. Therefore non-reference the name of P.W.3 in the inquest report coupled with the fact that her name does not finds place in the compliant Ex.P.28, leads us to doubt the presence of P.W.3 in the scene of occurrence. Hence insofar as the evidence of the four eye witnesses are concerned, there is nothing to implicate the accused in the commission of the offence.
16. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 could be discarded for the simple reason that both of them have spoken to the fact that the deceased was attacked by both the accused and one Padma along with P.W.4 on his head with stick. This evidence is not supported by medical evidence. P.W.8, the Post-mortem Doctor while certifying the injuries had not referred to any injury sustained by the deceased on the head. In the absence of any corresponding injury on the head of the deceased, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that P.W.4 and one Padma assaulted the deceased with stick on his head cannot be believed.
17. We now come to the recovery, which is much spoken to by P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer. Law on the recovery is by now well settled by the Apex Court. The conviction and sentence cannot be based solely on the basis of recovery, as the recovery would be only an additional circumstance to support the prosecution case let in through the other evidence. The prosecution had not established the recovery to the satisfaction of the court. Firstly the prosecution has not marked the recovery mahazar for the Gun and only the signature of P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer was marked as Ex.P.4. It is seen from the records that on 13.4.2005 the first accused/appellant had produced a Gun from the hut. The evidence of P.W.1 is that he has also produced a Gun to the police station during the course of investigation. In these circumstances, the burden on the prosecution is heavy to establish that the Gun which was actually used by the first accused/appellant was the one seized from the accused. But, in the absence of any actual seizure mahazar and only the signature of P.W.7 was marked as Ex.P.4, we are not inclined to accept the recovery as well. M.O.1 is the iron barrel portion of the country made Gun. M.O.2 is the broken wooden piece butt attached to the iron pipe. Though M.Os.1 and 2 had been produced, since no mahazar had been marked, in our considered opinion, the same is fatal to the prosecution case. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as eye witnesses and the recovery aspect, no other materials are produced before the court to implicate the accused in offence of murder. Hence we are of the considered view that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as to the commission of the offence by the frist accused/appellant.
18. Insofar as the charges relating to the provisions of the Arms Act is concerned, the evidence of P.W.14, the District Collector is relevant. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that M.O.1 is the prohibited weapon, to bring home the offence under the provisions of the Arms Act. But the same has not been established by the prosecution. On the contrary, the prosecution has come forward with a case that the Gun- M.O.1 was a lincenced one and the licence stands in the name of A.2. All that has been put-forth before the court is that the licenced Gun had been taken and used by A.1, who is the son of A.2, for the commission of the offence. The District Collector has not deposed that the Gun was either licenced or unlicenced. It must be kept in mind that the District Collector is the authority to grant licence under the Arms Act. He being the licencing authority was not heard as to whether the Gun said to have been used in the commission of offence was either licenced or unlicenced and if the Gun was licenced, it was in whose name. Further, as we have found that the prosecution has not succeeded in its case to prove that the Gun in question was, in fact, used by A.1 for the commission of the offence, the charge under the Arms Act is not established. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that in the absence of any other evidence, the evidence of the investigating officer alone would be sufficient for sustaining a conviction, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted on the facts of this case. As the licencing authority himself was not sure about the fact whether the Gun was licenced or unlicenced, the investigating officer is not competent to speak about the same. Hence it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the investigating officer alone to come to the conclusion that the Gun was a licenced one.
19. For all these reasons, we find that the judgment of court below in holding the first accused/appellant guilty cannot be sustained and consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 by the trial Court are set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant/A.1 is released forthwith, if his presence is not required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded. In so far as the material objects are concerned, M.Os.1,2,3,4,5,8,12 and 13 are ordered to be handed over to the Arsenal. M.O.6 and M.O.7 are ordered to be kept along with the records. M.O.9, M.O.10 and M.O.11 are ordered to be destroyed after the period of appeal to the Supreme Court expires.
Index : yes/no (D.M.,J.) (V.P.K.,J.)
Internet: yes/no 25.02.2008
Tr/
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam
2. -do- thru' the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
5. The District Collector, Villupuram
6. The Director General of Police, Chennai
7.The Inspector of Police,Tindivanam Police Station,
VillupuramDistrict
D.MURUGESAN, J.
and
V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.
Crl.A.No.191 of 2007
25.02.2008