{"id":4080,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-10T21:14:54","modified_gmt":"2014-06-10T15:44:54","slug":"k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/01\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A.Nos.172 of 2002\nCrl.A.Nos. 173, 174, 192,\n215 and 224 of 2002\n\nCrl. A. No.172 of 2002:-\n\nK. Sulochana\t\t\t \t    ...Appellant\/Accused- 3\n\nvs.\n\nState rep. by the\n    Inspector of Police\nVigilance and Anticorruption\nNagercoil.\t\t\t\t    ...Respondent\/Complainant\n\nPrayer in Crl. A. No.172 of 2002\n\nThese Criminal Appeals are filed under\nSection 374 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction of the\nappellants\/ accused passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge,\nNagercoil in S.C.No.1 of 1991 dated 31.01.2002.\n\n!For Appellants ...Sri.S. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Counsel\n \t    \t   for M\/s.S. Palanivelayutham\n^For Respondent ...Sri.P. Rajendran, GA\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThese appeals arise against the Judgment passed by the Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil in S.C.No.1 of 1991 dated
\n31.01.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. Originally there were 9 accused in the case and of them two
\nsubsequently died. 7 accused stood trial in Spl.Case No.1 of 1991 on the file of
\nthe learned  Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil.  They were
\ncharged as follows :\n<\/p>\n
Accused \tCharges
\nSl.No.\n<\/p>\n
A-1\t120(b), 420, 471 r\/w 467 of IPC 5(1)(d) r\/w 5(2) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act r\/w 109 IPC<\/p>\n
A-2\t120(b), 420 r\/w 109 IPC, 467, 468 of IPC,5(1)(d)r\/w 5(2) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act r\/w 109 IPC<\/p>\n
A-3\t120(b), 420 r\/w 109 IPC, 467, 468 of IPC,5(1)(d)r\/w 5(2) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act r\/w 109 IPC<\/p>\n
A-4\t120(b), 420, 471 r\/w 109 of IPC, 467 [3 counts] of IPC 5(1)(d) r\/w 5(2) of the
\n\tPrevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
A-5\t120(b), 420 r\/w 109 IPC, 468 of IPC, 5(1)(d)r\/w 5(2) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act r\/w 109 IPC<\/p>\n
A-6\t120(b), 420 r\/w 109 IPC, 467, 468 of IPC,5(1)(d)r\/w 5(2) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act r\/w 109 IPC<\/p>\n
A-7\t120(b), 420 r\/w 109 of IPC, 467 [2 counts],468 of IPC [2 counts] 5(1)(d) r\/w
\n\t5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
On conclusion of trial and vide judgment dated 31.01.2002 the accused stand
\nconvicted as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
Accused \tCharges
\nSl.No.\n<\/p>\n
A-1,2,5 120(B)IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
\n\tRs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI;\n<\/p>\n
\t420 r\/w 109 of IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine
\n\tof Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI;  471 r\/w 467 of IPC – to undergo
\n\t2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- in default to
\n\tundergo 6 months RI;\n<\/p>\n
\t5(1)(e) r\/w 5(2) of PC Act r\/w 109 IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous
\n\tImprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI;\n<\/p>\n
A-3,4,6 120(B)IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
\nand 7\tRs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI;\n<\/p>\n
\t420 r\/w 109 of IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine
\n\tof Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI;  467 IPC – to undergo 2 years
\n\tRigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6
\n\tmonths RI;\n<\/p>\n
\t468 IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
\n\tRs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI; and
\n\t5(1)(d) r\/w 5(2)of PC Act r\/w 109 IPC – to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment
\n\tand to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- in default to undergo 6 months RI;\n<\/p>\n
These appeals are preferred against the above findings.  The appellants in
\nCrl.A.No.215\/2002 are A-1 and A-2, the appellant in Crl.A.No.172\/2002 is the
\nthird accused, the appellant in Crl.A.No.173\/2002 is the fourth accused, the
\nappellant in Crl.A.No.174\/2002 is the fifth accused, the appellant in
\nCrl.A.No.224\/2002 is the sixth accused and A-7 is the appellant in
\nCrl.A.No.192\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.  The case of the prosecution is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe first accused S. Nagarajan was a Medical Practioner, in-charge
\nof the private Rajan Hospital at Nagercoil and the second accused was his
\nAssistant therein.  The accused 3 to 7 were public servants.  Between February
\nand March 1980, all the accused entered into a conspiracy and with criminal
\nintent created false records of the conduct of family planning operations at
\nRajan Hospital, whereby the first accused was enabled to fraudulently receive
\ngovernment funds of a sum of Rs.3235\/- with the complicity of the other accused.
\nFalse records have been created of the conduct of family planning operations,
\nfalse certificates have been issued in respect thereof and thumb impressions
\nhave falsely been affixed on receipts towards receipts of monies.  Accordingly,
\nthe accused have been charged for offences under section 120(b), 420, 467, 468
\nas also for offences under section 5(1)(e) r\/w 5(2) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act.  The prosecution examined 53 witnesses and marked 273 exhibits.
\nThe occurrence is of the year 1980.  The First Information Report in the case
\nwas registered in 1983.  The charge sheet was filed in 1991 i.e. about 12 years
\nafter the alleged occurrence.  Shorn of unnecessary details, the case is that
\nthe Rajan Nursing Home was one of the Hospitals which had been approved for
\nconducting family planning operations in the course of Government Family
\nPlanning drive.  The person undergoing Tubectomy\/ Vasectomy operations were give
\nRs.85\/- and Rs.75\/- respectively.  The motivator was paid Rs.10\/-.  A payment of
\nRs.15\/- was made towards the cost of drugs and dressing and a fee of Rs.5\/- was
\npaid as doctor’s fee for conduct of operation.  A sum of Rs.5\/- was also paid
\nfor transport charges to the person undergoing operation and Rs.20\/- was give to
\nsuch person towards diet charges.  It is through manipulation of records in
\nrespect of the above, that monies are said to have been siphoned-off by the
\nfirst accused with the aid of the other accused. PW-44 who was the then
\nStatistical Officer in the Public Welfare Department has spoken to having
\nconducted an enquiry on the operations conducted at Rajan Nursing Home and other
\nhospitals and deposed that the records reveal that 633 men and 274 women,
\ntotalling 907 had undergone Tubectomy\/ Vasectomy operations and that enquiry was
\nconducted in respect of 91 cases.  Confirmation could not be had in respect of
\n87 persons since there were no such persons or their addresses were given
\nwrongly.  Of the remaining 4,  3 had denied of having undergone any operation
\nwhile one had admitted thereto.  He would state that his report Exh.P-82 did not
\ninform who were the 91 persons or which were the addresses that were not found
\nin the course of the enquiry, though such information had been furnished along
\nwith the report while submitting the same to the Directorate.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.  PW-48, who had worked as Cashier at the Panchayat Union and had
\nbeen interrogated by the Investigating Officer with regard to the records
\npertaining to family planning for the Panchayat Union during the year 1979-1980
\nhad, in cross examination, admitted that some of the records had gone missing
\nfrom the office.  PW-51, one of the Investigating Officers had admitted that it
\nwas the Block Development Officers who would disburse the cash under the family
\nplanning programme.  Though he would deny that all the family planning records
\nhad not been examined, he would admit that he had examined the Block Development
\nOfficer at the Panchayat Union but had not recorded a statement since he
\nconsidered the same unimportant. Making a turn around, he would depose that such
\nBlock Development Officers had not been examined by him.  He would admit of not
\nhaving been put in possession of the family planning records at the Panchayat
\nUnion and to lack of knowledge of whether the same was so given to the earlier
\ninvestigating officer.  PW-51 also admits of not having pointedly questioned PW-
\n44 about the persons examined by him.  He also would admit of having seen the
\nreport of Dr. Abbas Bai and of not having examined such person.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.  In circumstances where PW-44 would admit that Exh.P-82 did not
\ninform the exact nature of the enquiry conducted by him and the finding reported
\ntherein, where PW-48 would inform that records relating to family planning had
\ngone missing, where PW-51 would be ambivalent about examination of the Block
\nDevelopment Officers, where PW-51 admits to not having been put in possession of
\nthe family planning records, where the Block Development Officers, who even as
\nper the admission of PW-51 were the disbursing authority under the family
\nplanning programme has not been examined and where Dr. Abbas Bai who is said to
\nhave prepared a report in the matter has neither been examined nor been called
\nas a witness, we find that the prosecution case rests merely on the evidence of
\nthe motivators involved in the family planning programme, the evidence of the
\nVillage Administrative Officers regarding the existence  or non-existence of
\npersons who had been operated upon and on the evidence of the finger print
\nexpert. PW-3 to PW-15, PW-45 and PW-46 are the motivators.  Their evidence is
\nthat they had handed over sums received from the Panchayat Union and which were
\nto be paid to the persons undergoing operations to A-1 and  A-2.  This runs
\ncontrary to the evidence of the investigating officer to the effect that it was
\nthe Block Development Officer who was to disburse payments.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.  PW-16 to PW-19, PW-21 to PW-27, PW-29 to PW-34 and PW-40 are the
\nVillage Administrative Officers. They had issued certificates informing that
\ncertain persons were not residents in the villages under their supervision.
\nThese Village Administrative Officers are not persons attached to the concerned
\nvillages at the time of occurrence and apart from their certificates there is
\nnothing else to show the nature of enquiry conducted by them towards the issue
\nof certificates. Their evidence is most wanting.  In many a case, it is seen
\nthat they did not even know the names of the fathers of the persons whose
\nexistence or non-existence was to be certified by them or their addresses and
\nare unable to deny that there were several persons under the same names.  It is
\nquite apparent that they have issued certificates merely on the request of the
\ninvestigating officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.  PW-52 is the Investigating Officer who has obtained the finger
\nprints of the accused persons.  He would state that he submitted a letter to the
\nDirector, Anti-Corruption Bureau requesting that a finger print expert be sent
\nto the Nagercoil Office for the purpose of comparison of finger prints on the
\ndocuments with those that had been obtained by him.  According to him, the
\nfinger print expert was at Nagercoil on 17.09.1984 and carried out the work of
\ncomparison and issued a preliminary report.  Such expert had asked that the
\nfinger print impression be forwarded to the office at Chennai for detailed
\ninvestigation.  He would admit that the expert who issued the preliminary report
\nwas one Victor David and that such person had neither been examined as witness
\nnor his report been produced.  Further, PW-52 specifically admits that the
\nfinger print impressions of various accused persons were obtained by one Head
\nConstable by name Mani. He would claim that the police department would train
\nits personnel on lifting of finger prints even before they were made Head
\nConstables.  In the instant case, the said police constable Mani has not been
\nexamined as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.  In Shanmugayya & Ors. v. State, 1992 (3) Crimes p.505, a
\nDivision Bench of this Court has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t’31.  In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to
\ncertain provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 (Act No.33 of
\n1920).  The object of this Act was to authorise taking of measurements and
\nphotographs of convicts and others.  The word “measurements” has been defined
\nunder Section 2(a) of the Act to include finger impressions and foot-print
\nimpressions and under Section 2(b), it is stated that ‘Police Officer’ means an
\nOfficer in charge of a police station, a police officer making an investigation
\nunder Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898 (5 of 1898) or any
\nother police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector.  Section 3 of the Act
\nconcerns itself with taking of measurements etc., of convicted persons.  In the
\ninstant case we are not concerned with this section.  Section 4 deals with
\ntaking of measurements or photographs of non-convicted persons, Section 4 reads
\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“4.  Taking of measurements of \tphotographs of non-convicted persons,-\n<\/p>\n
\tAny person -\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) who has been arrested\n-\n(i)Under section 55 of the Code of Criminal       Procedure, 1898, or under\nsection 4 of the Bombay Beggars Act, 1945;\n<\/pre>\n
(ii)In connection with an offence punishable under Section 122 of the Bombay
\nPolice Act, 1951, or under section 6 or 9 of the Bombay Beggars Act, 1945, or in
\nconnection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of
\none year or upwards, or<\/p>\n
(b) in respect of whom a direction or order under      section 55 or 56 of the
\nBombay Police Act, 1951, or under sub section (1) or (2) of section 23 of the
\nBombay Beggars Act, 1945, or under Section 2 of the Bombay Public Security
\nMeasures Act, 1947, has been made, shall, if so required by a Police Officer,
\nallow his measurements or photograph to be taken in the prescribed manner.”<\/p>\n
\tA look at Section 4 of the Act shows, that any person who had been
\narrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for
\na term of one year or upwards (as far it is relevant to this case) shall, if so
\nrequired by a police Officer allow his measurements or photograph to be taken in
\nthe prescribed manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t32. Section 4 refers to taking of measurements etc. of
\nhabitual offenders against whom restriction order is made. We are not concerned
\nwith this section in the present appeal. Section 5 deals with the power of a
\nMagistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed. Under this Section
\nif a Magistrate is satisfied that, for  the purpose of any investigation or
\nproceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct
\nany person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an
\norder to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall
\nbe produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and
\nshall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a
\nPolice Officer. Such an order can be made only by a Magistrate of First Class
\nand further unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with
\nsuch investigation or proceeding. The Act does not say, that Section 5 refers to
\nthe prescribed manner spelt out in Section 4 of the Act. The power of the
\nMagistrate under Section 5 of the Act does not seem to affect the power of a
\nPolice Officer, to take finger prints or photographs of the persons arrested in
\nconnection with, the various facets referred to under Section 4 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t33.  Section 6 takes in its fold permissibility of use of
\nlawful means necessary to secure measurements or photographs when resistance is
\noffered or refusal is indicated by the person concerned. Such resistance or
\nrefusal, according to Section 6 of the Act shall be deemed to be an offence
\npunishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. We are not concerned with
\nSection 7 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t34. Section 8 confers powers on the State Government to make
\nrules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. It was
\nstated by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the State of Tamil Nadu had not
\nframed any rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the
\nAct. After careful consideration of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, we are unable
\nto agree with Mr.N.Dinakar, that invariably during investigation a person
\narrested must be taken before a Magistrate and orders obtained  before the
\nfinger prints of such persons could be taken by a Police Officer. Sections 4 and
\n5 operate in different fields and obviously if the State Government had made any
\nrules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, the
\nInvestigating Officer, ought to have followed such rules which would fall within
\nthe ambit of ”prescribed manner” contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. If
\nthe State Government has not made any rules under the Act, it will be the duty
\nof the Investigating  Officer, to follow Police Standing Order 836. Police
\nStanding Orders are in the nature of instructions given, to be followed by the
\nPolice force. Police Standing Order 836 (3) (a) defines ”finger prints” as
\nincluding prints of thumb and are either ‘rolled’ or ‘plain’. P.S.O.836(3) (f)
\ndefines ‘proficient’ to be an Officer, who has been declared by a Superintendent
\nof Police or in the City of Madras by the Commissioner of Police, to be
\nqualified to take clear and well-rolled impressions. The method of taking finger
\nprints with reference to appliances, forms part of P.S.O. 836 (4) (a). P.S.O.
\n836(4) (d) states that prints should invariably be taken on the authorised
\nFinger-Print Slip (Form No.141). It also states, that the headings of the slip
\nare self-explanatory.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t35.  If Form No.141 had been used in the instant case, the
\nvarious infirmities we have pointed would in all possibility, not have occurred
\nat all.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t36.  P.S.O. 836(4) (k) reads \tas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
” Finger impressions shall be taken only by officers declared by a
\nSuperintendent or, in the City of Madras, by the Commissioner of Police, to be
\nqualified to take clear and well-rolled impressions.”<\/p>\n
           None of the provisions of Police Standing Order 836 had been followed
\nby the investigating agency. Of course, it is possible to argue that Police
\nStanding Orders do not have statutory force and therefore non-following of the
\nStanding Order cannot be held in favour of the appellants. Even if the
\nprovisions of the Police Standing Orders had not been complied with and if the
\nobtaining of finger prints from the appellants in the manner spoken to by C.Ws.
\n1 and 2, did inspire confidence, we would have still to consider if non-
\nfollowing of the procedure of the Police Standing Orders, was only irregular,
\nwhich did not affect the fact of finger print impressions having been obtained
\nby C.W.1 in the presence of C.W.2, claimed by the former.\n<\/p>\n
        \tWe have already pointed out several infirmities, which taint the
\nwhole process of obtaining of finger print impressions and probably less said it
\nwould be better for the prosecution. We think it necessary that the State
\nGovernment must make rules under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners
\nAct 1920 for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
\nSome of the State Governments have made rules. A proper procedure in obtaining
\nfinger prints must be followed for otherwise, the sanctity of scientific
\nevidence not only gets obliterated but also becomes an exercise in futility”.\n<\/p>\n
In the case cited, the persons who had taken the finger prints were found
\nwanting in the conduct of their task, while in the present case such person has
\nnot so much as been examined.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.  The present Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders 801, corresponds
\nto the old order 836 and here also PSO 801(3)(f) describes proficient as,
\n‘Proficient means an officer who has been declared by a Superintendent of Police
\nor in the City of Madras by the Commissioner of Police to be competent to
\nexamine, classify and give expert opinion on finger impressions’.
\nand PSO 801(4)(k) informs that,
\n‘Finger Prints by whom to be taken – finger impressions shall be taken only by
\nofficers declared by a Superintendent or, in the City of Madras by the
\nCommissioner of Police, to be qualified to take clear and well-rolled
\nimpressions’.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.  Again in case of K.Dhanasekaran v. State, 2003 (1) CTC 223,
\nthis Hon’ble Court has, after dealing with the aspect of obtaining finger
\nprints, also dealt with the question of passing conviction, on the strength of
\nthe expert evidence.  This Court has this to say;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t” 9.  It is also argued that in the absence of any evidence to
\nshow that the specimen signatures were obtained as per the procedure laid down
\nunder Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, it is not safe to impose
\nconviction merely on the basis of expert’s opinion.  In our case, I have already
\nreferred to the fact that the evidence of Pws.1,3 and 4 are not reliable for the
\nreasons stated above; accordingly in the absence of compliance of Section 5 of
\nthe Identification of Prisoners Act, now I shall consider whether the conviction
\ncan be based only on the expert’s (P.W.8’s) evidence.  The following conclusion
\nof the Supreme Court in S.Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. 1996 SCC (Crl.) 792 is
\npressed into service: (para 28)
\n\t\t\t“28. Thus, the evidence of PW.3 is not definite and cannot be
\nsaid to be of clinching nature to connect the appellant with the disputed
\nletters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the
\ncourts do not generally consider it as offering ‘conclusive’ proof and therefore
\nsafe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable
\ncorroboration.  In Magan Bihari Lal v.State of Punjab, 1977 (2) SCC 210: 1977
\nSCC (Cri.) 313, while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, this
\nCourt opined : (SCC pp.213-14, para-7)
\n\t\t“… We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the
\nappellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It
\nis now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great
\ncaution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting
\nexpert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is
\nunsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial
\ncorroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost
\nbecome a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.,
\nAIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Crl LJ 559 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting
\nopinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but is may be relied upon when
\nsupported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again
\npointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohdn. Isa, AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 1728 : 1963 BLJR
\n226 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is,
\nafter all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar
\nBanerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR<\/a> 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by
\nthis Court that expert’s evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can
\nrarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on
\nsuch evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated
\neither by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had
\nagain occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to
\nhandwriting in Fakruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 (2) Andh LT
\n38 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found
\na conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting
\nupon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated
\nby other evidence,direct or circumstantial.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from the above judgment that it is not desirable to impose
\nconviction solely on the evidence of expert without corroborative evidence
\neither direct or circumstantial.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.  This court finds itself in respectful agreement with the
\nearlier decisions of this Court both on the question of the person by whom and
\nthe manner in which finger prints have to be obtained and also evidentiary value
\nof the opinion of the finger print expert.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.  For all the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in
\nthe prosecution case and accordingly these appeals shall stand allowed. The fine
\namount paid by the appellants shall be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
avr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  Inspector of Police
\n    Vigilance and Anticorruption
\n    Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The District Chief Judicial
\n    Magistrate-cum-Special Judge,
\n    Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Public Prosecutor
\n    Madurai Bench of
\n     Madras High Court
\n    Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/01\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.A.Nos.172 of 2002 Crl.A.Nos. 173, 174, 192, 215 and 224 of 2002 Crl. A. No.172 of 2002:- K. Sulochana …Appellant\/Accused- 3 vs. State rep. by the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-10T15:44:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-10T15:44:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3819,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-10T15:44:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-10T15:44:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-10T15:44:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":3819,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010","name":"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-10T15:44:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sulochana-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Sulochana vs State Rep. By The on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}