IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12/03/2003
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARAN
Criminal Appeal No.649 of 1996
Harichandran @ Saravanan .. Appellant
-Vs-
State,
rep. by Inspector of Police,
Papparapatti Police Station
Crime No.150/89. .. Respondent
Prayer:- Appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dated 2 6.8.1996
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri, in
Sessions Case No.43 of 1992.
!For Appellant : Mr.C.Pandian
^For Respondent : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:J U D G M E N T
In this appeal, the appellant assails the judgment of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri, dated 26.8.1996 in
Sessions Case No.43 of 1992, convicting him for the offences punishable under
Sections 304 Part I and 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and three years for the said offences
respectively, directing both the sentences to run concurrently, for having
caused the death of his wife, Dayawathi, and for having attempted to murder
P.W.4.
2. According to the prosecution, a lascivious relationship between
P.W.4 and Dayawathi (deceased), who is nonetheless the wife of the accused,
was the motive behind the crime in question, as spoken by the Village
Administrative Officer (P.W.1), the paramour of the deceased (P.W.4), the
father of P.W.4 (P.W.7) and the Investigating Officers ( P.Ws.10 and 11).
However, it is trite law that a mere existence of such motive, by itself, is
not sufficient to determine the criminal character of an accused, as the
prosecution is bound to prove the charges against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts, failing which, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
3. The sheet-anchor of the case of the prosecution is the
extrajudicial confession statement (Ex.P1) said to have been made by the
accused before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1), in the presence of
one Muniyan, at 6.30 a.m. on 17.5.1989 at Pannaikulam Village, which is 2
Kms. away from the place of occurrence, namely, Kittampatti Village, stating
that the accused had pushed his wife Dayawathi ( deceased) and the paramour of
the deceased (P.W.4), into a well belonging to P.W.4, at about 10.30 p.m. on
16.5.1989.
4. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the accused was the Secretary of the
“Youth Welfare Association” of the Kittampatti village and P.W.4 was the
Treasurer. Both of them were related and moving closely. P.W.4 used to visit
the house of the accused frequently six months prior to the occurrence and
developed illicit intimacy with Dayawathi ( deceased). The deceased used to
beat the children for no reason. Doubting the conduct of the deceased, the
accused enquired the deceased about her relationship with P.W.4, to which the
deceased confessed her guilt and pleaded pardon. However, the accused decided
to kill Dayawathi (deceased) and her paramour (P.W.4).
5. As per the extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1), on the
date of occurrence, the accused after his dinner, under the pretext of
sleeping, was observing his wife Dayawathi (deceased), who removed her anklets
and went away. The accused followed her till she reached the well belonging
to P.W.4, where P.W.4 was waiting for Dayawathi ( deceased). The accused
heard the deceased telling P.W.4 that they should stop the illicit intimacy as
her husband (accused) had come to know the same. The deceased also informed
P.W.4 that the child in her ovum was conceived through P.W.4. The moment the
accused overheard the above conversation between his wife (deceased) and
P.W.4, he decided to kill both of them. The accused pushed P.W.4 into the
well first. In the meanwhile, as the deceased ran away out of fear, the
accused chased and caught her and pushed her also into the well. The entire
occurrence had taken place at about 10.30 p.m. on 16.5.1989. Believing both
Dayawathi (deceased) and P.W.4 would have died, the accused left to
Kittampatti village to hide himself till the morning when he met the Village
Administrative Officer (P.W.1) at Pannaikulam and gave an extra-judicial
confession (Ex.P1) at about 6 a.m. on 17.5.1989 .
6. Speaking about the said extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.
P1), the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) deposed that the
extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1) was obtained in the presence of
one Muniyan, the Village Assistant of Pannaikulam village, with whom he went
to the scene of occurrence and found that the body of the deceased (Dayawathi)
was floating. As per the information gathered by P.W.1, one Gopal (P.W.7),
the father of P.W.4, took P.W.4 to K.N. Rao Hospital at Salem for treatment.
After preparing a report (Ex.P2) at the place of occurrence, P.W.1 took the
accused to Papparapatti Police Station and handed over the accused along with
Exs.P1 and P2.
7. On receipt of Exs.P1 and P2, the Head Constable Thiru.Jayaraman
(P.W.8) registered a First Information Report (Ex.P3), at about 9.30 a.m. for
the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for having murdered
Dayawathi (deceased) and Section 307 I.P.C. for having attempted to murder
P.W.4.
8. According to P.W.1, the Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Police
Station (P.W.10) came to the Papparapatti Police Station at about 10.45 a.m.,
enquired the accused and also recorded a confession statement from the
accused.
9. It was further narrated by P.W.1 that all three of them, namely
P.W.1, the investigating officer (P.W.10) and the accused, went back to the
place of occurrence at about 12 noon on 17.5.1989 and P.W.10 prepared an
Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P8) in the presence of
P.W.1 and one Shanmugam, and both the observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and rough
sketch (Ex.P8) were duly vouched by P.W.1 and the said Shanmugam.
10. Based on Exs.P1 and P2 and the evidence of the Village
Administrative Officer (P.W.1), the investigating officers (P.W.10) and his
successor (P.W.11) investigated into the matter, examined Raman, Mathesh,
Nynagounder and P.W.3 on 25.2.1990; P.W.4 on 30.3.1990; and P.W.6 and P.W.7 on
10.5.1990; recorded their statements, and filed a final report against the
accused on 17.11.1990 charging him for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 316 and 307 I.P.C. Since the accused denied the charges, he was tried in
Sessions Case No.43 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. On being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused specifically denied the extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1)
and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the above crime and therefore,
pleaded innocence.
11. To substantiate the charges framed against the accused, 11
witnesses were examined and 9 exhibits were marked, of them, the following are
relevant to be mentioned:
(i)P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who recorded the
extra-judicial confession statement (Ex.P1) said to have been made by the
accused. P.W.1 also prepared a report (Ex.P2) and handed over the accused and
Exs.P1 and P2 to Papparapatti Police Station;
(ii)P.W.2 is the Doctor, who treated P.W.4 through whom Ex.P5 – Wound
Certificate of P.W.4 was marked;
(iii)P.W.3 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem on the body of the
deceased Dayawathi, through whom the requisition letter to conduct post mortem
and the Post Mortem Certificate were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 respectively;
(iv)P.W.4 is the paramour of Dayawathi (deceased), who is nonetheless the wife
of the accused;
(v)P.W.5, Somarajan, got into the well, lifted and bailed out P.W.4;
(vi)P.W.6, Jayagopal, spoke about the shifting of P.W.4 to K.N.Rao Hospital at
Salem by engaging a taxi;
(vii)P.W.7 is the father of P.W.4, who deposed about the lifting of P.W.4 from
the well;
(viii) P.W.8, Thiru.Jayaraman, is the Head Constable at Papparapatti Police
Station, who registered the F.I.R. (Ex.P3) before whom the accused was
produced by P.W.1;
(ix)P.W.9, Thiru.Rathinasamy, was deputed to hand over the F.I.R. to the
Court and also to the Investigating Officer (P.W.10); and
(x)P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted initial investigation
and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4), a Rough Sketch ( Ex.P8) and an
inquest report (Ex.P9); and
(xi)P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer, who succeeded P.W.10 and completed
the investigation.
12. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in the light
of the above evidence on record, by judgment dated 26.8.1996 in S.C.No.43 of
1992:
i.acquitted the accused from the offence punishable under Section 316 I.P.C.;
ii.converted the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. as an offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and convicted the accused for the
same and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for
having caused the death of his wife Dayawathi by pushing her in the well;
iii.also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for having
attempted to murder P.W.4; and
iv.directed both the sentences to run concurrently.
Hence, the above appeal.
13. Mr.C.Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant contends that:
i.the prosecution had not explained the delay in registering the F.I.R.;
ii.the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy;
iii.the prosecution failed to explain satisfactorily the reasons for the delay
of ten months in examining the only eye-witness P.W.4 and therefore, the
evidence of P.W.4 is also unbelievable;
iv.the conduct of P.W.4 and his father-P.W.7 are strange inasmuch as they
failed to report the incident to the police immediately after the occurrence;
and
v.the non-examination of one Mani, the person alleged to have first seen P.W.4
lying in the well vitiates the case of the prosecution.
14. On the other hand, Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent took me through the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and made submissions supporting the
impugned judgment more or less on the reasons given by the trial Court in the
impugned judgment.
15. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both
sides.
16. The case of the prosecution is based on (i) the extra judicial
confession (Ex.P1), which is relied upon not only for the purpose of the
existence of motive to commit the crime, but also to establish the commission
of crime; (ii) the evidence of an ocular and injured witness P.W.4; and (iii)
the corroborative evidence of (a) P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer;
(b) P.W.2 and P.W.3, the medical witnesses; (c) P.W.5, who spoke about the
rescuing of P.W.4 from the well; (d) P.W.6, who shifted P.W.4 to K.N.Rao
Hospital at Salem; (e) P.W.7, the father of P.W.4; (f) P.W.8 and P.W.9, the
police constables, who registered the complaint and handed over the FIR copy
to the Court as well as to P.W.10; and (g) P.W.10 and P.W.11, the
investigating Officers, who conducted investigation.
17.1. It is well settled in law that when the case of the prosecution
is based on an extra-judicial confession, it may not be safe to convict the
accused based on such extra-judicial confession, if the same is retracted by
the accused in the Court by way of a total denial, as in the instant case.
Hence, the extra-judicial confession statement relied upon by the prosecution
(Ex.P1) must be scrutinised with greater care and caution, not being carried
away merely based on the motive of the accused for committing the crime as set
forth by the prosecution.
17.2. Admittedly, the prosecution relies upon two confession
statements, namely, (i) the extra-judicial confession said to have been made
by the accused before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) in the
presence of the Village Assistant (Muniyan); and (ii) the confession statement
made by the accused before the Investigating Officer ( P.W.10) during the
police custody in the presence of P.W.1 and one Nyna Gounder, which was
neither produced before the Court nor marked during the trial.
17.3. For placing reliance on Ex.P1, extra-judicial confession, the
prosecution is bound to satisfy the Court that the same was made voluntarily,
as it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond all
reasonable doubts.
17.4. Even though Ex.P1 was said to have been recorded by P.W.1 in
the presence of Muniyan, there is no proper explanation by P.W.1 for not
getting the said statement attested by the said Muniyan. Though a specific
question was put to P.W.1 in the cross examination for not getting the
signature of Muniyan as attestor to Ex.P1, there was no convincing explanation
for the same, nor the prosecution explained for not examining the said Muniyan
to establish that the extra judicial confession (Ex.P1) had been made
voluntarily.
17.5. When sufficient evidence was available to establish that the
extra-judicial confession (Ex.P1) was made voluntarily by examining the other
only witness, namely, Muniyan, who was said to be present at the time of
recording the extra judicial confession (Ex.P1), I do not see any reason for
not examining the said Muniyan to prove that the said extra-judicial
confession statement (Ex.P1) was made voluntarily, which in my considered
opinion, is the first set back to the case of the prosecution.
17.6. Assuming the motive of murder said to have been relied upon by
the prosecution corroborates with the confession relied upon by the
prosecution under Ex.P1, such motive, by itself, is not sufficient to conclude
that extra-judicial confession (Ex.P1) was made voluntarily. In this regard,
we should not forget that Ex.P1 is not a judicial confession made before the
Magistrate, which is protected under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with due
precautions. The recording of confession by the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. is very much reliable, as the same satisfies the precautions
contemplated thereunder. In other words, even the judicial confession made
before the Magistrate if lacks the precautions contemplated thereunder, is
liable to be rejected, in the absence of any positive evidence that the
precautions required under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were taken and a certificate
required under Section 164(3) Cr.P.C. was not made duly appended to the
recorded confession. In the instant case, as already found, the extrajudicial
confession statement (Ex.P1) relied upon by the prosecution could not be
relied upon as there is no proper explanation by the prosecution for the
failure in examining the Village Assistant, Muniyan, who was said to be
present at the time of recording the extra-judicial confession statement
(Ex.P1).
17.7. Coming to the other confession said to have been made by the
accused in the Police Station at about 10.45 a.m. on 17.5.1989 in the
presence of P.W.1 and one Nyna Gounder, as already observed, the said
confession statement was neither produced before the Court nor marked during
the trial. Even though P.W.1 had also stated that a confession statement was
recorded by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) in the presence of P.W.1 and
the said Nyna Gounder, and both of them attested the same, the said confession
statement was neither produced before the Court, nor marked during the trial,
nor the said Nyna Gounder was examined on behalf of the prosecution.
Therefore, the reliance placed on the confession statement said to have been
made before the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) is also liable to be rejected.
18.1. P.W.1 deposed that after recording Ex.P1, he took the accused
along with the said Muniyan to the scene of occurrence and found the body of
the deceased was floating and thereafter, proceeded to Papparapatti Police
Station to hand over the accused at 8.30 a.m. on 17.5.1 989. The Head
Constable (P.W.8), who registered the F.I.R. at 9.30 a.m. on 17.5.1989,
deposed that the accused was handed over to him at Papparapatti Police Station
only at 9.30 a.m. There is absolutely no explanation by P.W.1 as to what had
happened between 8.30 and 9.30 a.m. after reaching Papparapatti Police
Station. Had the accused been produced at 8.30 a.m., what was the reason for
P.W.8 to depose that the accused was taken on judicial custody only at 9.30
a.m. while P. W.10 deposed that he arrived at Papparapatti Police Station
only at 10 .45 a.m. and recorded the second confession statement in the
presence of P.W.1 and one Nyna Gounder, who was not examined. I do not see
any justified reason for the lapses on the part of the prosecution for not
examining the said Nyna Gounder.
18.2. P.W.1 further deposed that he along with P.W.10 and one
Shanmugam came to the scene of occurrence at 12 noon on the same day and
P.W.10 prepared Ex.P4 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P8 Rough Sketch, duly
attested by P.W.1 and the said Shanmugam, who was not examined. In the cross
examination, P.W.1 deposed that he had prepared three copies of report at 8.30
a.m. when he came to the scene of occurrence along with the accused and the
said Muniyan, and forwarded one copy to the Magistrate. Except the one, which
was forwarded to P.W.8, the other two copies of the statement or report
whatever prepared at the place of occurrence at 8.30 a.m. have not been
produced before the Court. The lapses on the part of the prosecution in this
regard create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
19.1. The next evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the direct
testimony of P.W.4, against whom an attempt was made by the accused to murder,
attracting Section 307 I.P.C. No doubt, when a direct injured ocular witness
is available the motive is irrelevant, and therefore, assuming the evidence of
P.W.1 is unreliable, the prosecution could rely upon the evidence of P.W.4 as
a direct injured ocular witness.
19.2. As per the testimony of P.W.4, he was standing on the western
side of the well when he was pushed into the well by the accused. Even though
P.W.4 deposed that the accused pushed him and the deceased into the well and
left the scene of occurrence, there is no explanation as to how the third
parties namely, Parvathi, Madhu and Mani, arrived at the scene of occurrence
at about 3 a.m. on 17.5.1989, and assuming the same is true, why the
prosecution had not recorded statements from any of the said persons. That
apart, the investigation is silent as to whether the persons who came to the
scene of occurrence first reported to the Village Assistant, Muniyan, who was
available in the same village, or the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1)
or the police about the occurrence, and if not, the reason for their silence.
19.3. P.W.4 further deposed that many people came to the spot
immediately and P.W.5 bailed him out and thereafter, he was taken to K.N. Rao
Hospital at Salem. When P.W.4 had deposed that he was taken by a cart till
the main road, which is 1 km away from the scene of occurrence and thereafter,
by a taxi, which was brought by one Shamugam, there is no proper explanation
from the prosecution for not examining the said Shanmugam or the Taxi Driver.
This again is considered to be a deficiency in the investigation.
19.4. P.W.4 also deposed that he was conscious when he was taken to
the hospital, and became unconscious thereafter. But, the Doctor (P.W.2), who
treated P.W.4 could not explain any grave nature of the injuries on P.W.4 nor
produce any material evidence such as x-ray to substantiate that P.W.4 was
seriously injured during the occurrence. On the other hand, P.W.4 in his
cross examination, had stated that he was examined by P.W.10 only after 10
months. The whereabouts of P.W.4, during the said period of 10 months was not
even properly explained by the prosecution; nor the Investigating Officer gave
any acceptable or convincing reason for not enquiring P.W.4 immediately after
the occurrence. This again is considered to be a blow on the case of the
prosecution, particularly when the accused was charged and convicted under
Section 307 I.P.C. for having attempted to murder P.W.4.
19.5. A closer scrutinisation of the testimony of P.W.4 would clearly
reflect that he never bothered about his paramour, namely the deceased, either
when both of them were pushed into the well or thereafter. Analysing the
evidence of P.W.4 through his conduct, it is difficult to accept his version
of evidence.
20.1. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, we are left with
the evidence of other corroborative witnesses, viz., the medical evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.3; the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 who spoke about the rescuing
and shifting of P.W.4 for this treatment; the evidence of P.W.7, the father of
P.W.4; and the evidence of Investigating officers P.W.10 and P.W.11.
20.2. P.W.5, deposed that he came to know about the incident at about
3 a.m. on 17.5.1989 from one Mani, but the said Mani was not examined. In
the absence of clear evidence as to the source of information, the very
arrival and the presence of P.W.5 at the place of occurrence at about 3 a.m.
on 17.5.1989 was doubtful. Even though P.W.5 incidentally refers that one
Shanmugam, Ammasi, Vijayagopal, Parvathi also knew about the incident, none of
them were examined. According to the statement of P.W.5, P.W.7, the father of
P.W.4, was very much present at the place of occurrence at the earliest point
of time, namely, 3 a.m. along with fifty persons. This apparently reflects
the total dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer for not
having enquired P.W.7 immediately after the occurrence. It took almost one
year for the Investigating Officer to enquire P.W.7, who was also residing in
the very same village and moving around as the President of the Village
Panchayat. Moreover, P.W.7, the father of P. W.4, himself had stated in his
evidence that he was present at the scene of occurrence when P.W.10
Investigating Officer came at 12 noon on 17.5.1989 and prepared Ex.P4
Observation Mahazar and Ex.P8 Rough Sketch. But, P.W.10 has stated that he
could not identify the parents of P.W.4. The conduct of the Investigating
Officer in this regard shows a serious doubt about the standard of
investigation as well as his integrity.
20.3. Even though P.W.4 was shifted to K.N.Rao Hospital at Salem by a
taxi, as deposed by P.W.6, the taxi driver was not examined by the
prosecution. That apart, the want of explanation by P.W6 for not informing
the incident to the police, even after admitting P.W.4 in K.N.Rao Hospital,
Salem, further creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
20.4. The other corroborative witness relied upon by the prosecution
is P.W.7, the father of P.W.4. Admittedly, P.W.7 was present in the village
on the fateful night. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 7 and 1 0 would depict
that P.W.7 was seen in the place of occurrence at 8.30 a.m. itself on
17.5.1989 along with one Chinnasamy, Raman, and Munusamy. However, there was
no explanation by P.W.7 for not accompanying his son (P.W.4) to the hospital;
nor there was any explanation by the prosecution for not recording any
statement from P.W.7 immediately thereafter.
20.5. The other two corroborative witnesses relied upon by the
prosecution are P.W.2 and P.W.3, the medical witnesses. There are about 2 1
injuries found on the body of the deceased as per the Post Mortem Certificate
(Ex.P7), which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.3, who conducted post
mortem on the body of the deceased (Dayawathi). On the other hand, when P.W.4
was also pushed into the same well, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the Medical
Officer read with Wound Certificate (Ex.P5), only two injuries were found on
the body of P.W.4. Both were pushed from the same place in the same
direction. If that is so, the prosecution had not explained as to how P.W.4
could sustain only two injuries when the deceased sustained 21 injuries. I
have already opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 and the treatment
said to have been given to him are all unbelievable for want of material
evidence to corroborate the same. Therefore, the very presence of P.W.4 in
the scene of occurrence and the charge that the accused pushed P.W.4 into the
well, attempted to murder him, and thereby P.W.4 sustained serious injuries
are all held to be not proved, particularly when the prosecution had not taken
any steps to enquire P.W.4 for nearly 10 months, when P.W.4 was taking
treatment in K.N.Rao Hospital, Salem, which is very near from the place of
occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of medical witness (P.W.2) could not be
relied upon.
20.6. I have already pointed out the lapses on the part of the
Investigating Officers, namely P.W.10 and P.W.11. To pin point, as per the
the prosecution case P.W.7, the father of P.W.4, was present at 3 a.m. on
17.5.1989 along with fifty persons, and again thereafter at 12 noon on
17.5.1989 when the investigating officer (P.W.10) came tot he scene of
occurrence for preparing Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and the Rough Sketch
(Ex.P8). In spite of the presence of P.W.7, the Investigating Officer
(P.W.10) failed to record any statement from him, even though, by that time,
P.W.4 was bailed out and shifted to K.N. Rao Hospital at Salem. On the other
hand, the Investigating Officers, P.W.10 and P.W.11, had taken nearly about
one year to enquire P.W.7 and record his statement, which is an incurable
lapse on the part of the investigation and an unpardonable excuse for the
dereliction of the public duty cast on the Investigating Officers, P.W.10 and
P.W.11. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 are not trustworthy.
21. A closer scrutinisation of the evidence of the prosecution would,
therefore, go to show that there are grave deficiencies in the investigation
and the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.
In the premises aforesaid, I am inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment dated 26.8.1996 rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.43 of 1992; and acquit the accused.
Consequently, there will be a direction to cancel the bail bonds executed by
the accused.
Index : Yes Internet :Yes atr/sasi Copies to:- 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri (with records). 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri. 3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 4.The Inspector of Police, Papparapatti Police Station, Dharmapuri. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 6.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.