Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 August, 2021
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.N.Manjula
Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 10.08.2021
Pronounced on 27.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
Sakthivel .... Appellant/Single Accused
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
Thirupathur Taluk Police Station,
Vellore District.
(Crime No.06 of 2015) .... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the
appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (FTC),
Vellore made in SC.No.25 of 2016 by a judgement dated 08.11.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGEMENT
http://www.judis.nic.in 1/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 (Heard through Video Conferencing) R.N.MANJULA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (FTC), Vellore, made in S.C.No.25 of 2016 by a judgement dated 08.11.2019.
2. The facts of the case:-
The deceased Rajendiran and Meena were couples and they lived in Thamanur Village, Thirupattur Taluk. On the night of 03.01.2015, the accused trespassed into their house with an intention to commit robbery, attacked repeatedly on their head with the wooden pounder and killed both of them and then robbed the gold studs, gold thali and a golden coin roped in the thali wore by the deceased Meena, totally measuring an approximate 1 ½ sovereign and thus, committed the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302(2 counts) and 392 r/w 397 IPC. On receiving a complaint from the son of the deceased, a case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2015 under Sections 302 & 379 IPC. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 449, 302(2 counts) & 392 r/w 397 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 After the case was committed from the Judicial Magistrate II, Thirupattur in PRC.No.11 of 2015, the case has been taken on file and after observing all legal mandates, charges have been framed under Sections 449, 302(2 counts) and 392 r/w 397(2) IPC and convicted him.
2.1 On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and Exs.P1 to P19 and M.O.1 to M.O.21 were marked. On the side of the defendant, no witness has been examined and no documents were marked. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 449, 302(2 counts) and 392 r/w 397(2 counts) IPC. The details of the conviction imposed on the accused are as under:-
S.No. Provisions under which Sentence
convicted
1. Section 449 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default 3 months rigorous
imprisonment.
2. Section 302 (2 counts) for each count one life imprisonment and a fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default 3 months rigorous
imprisonment.
3. Section 392 r/w 397 (2 for each count 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 3 months counts) rigorous imprisonment.
2.2 Aggrieved over that, the accused has filed this Criminal Appeal. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
3. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the evidence of the witnesses in brief:-
The sons of the deceased have been working in Bangalore as a construction labourer. On 03.01.2015, the son of the deceased by name Sivakumar (P.W.1), returned from Bangalore to his native place; after he reached Thirupattur, he went to his mother-in-law's house and Nandivattam Village and stayed that night. On the next day morning, at about 8.15 am, he came to Thamanur Village to see his parents; when he went to his house, he found his father and mother dead with blood injuries and the jewels wore by his mother on her ears and neck went missing. He went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) on 07.01.2015. After the Police traced the accused and recovered the jewels robbed by him, PW1 identified the jewels (M.O.1 to M.O.5).
3.1 P.W.2 – Dr. K.M.Sivakumar, conducted the post-mortem on the bodies of the deceased on 05.01.2015, at Thirupattur Government Hospital.
He noticed the following injuries on the bodies of the deceased Ranjendiran and Meena:-
Rajendiran http://www.judis.nic.in 4/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 Appearance found at the post-mortem : Moderate built old male body lying on its back.
External injuries :- 10 cm x 1 cm with 6 cm length red brown colour contusion front of neck.
3x3 cm laceration wound just below left ear 4x4 cm and 3x3 cm two separated laceration wound left side scalp with exposing // left parietal bone.
Multiple lacerated injury 4 (four) in No. each 2x4 cm irregular lacerated wound front of left forehead supera orbital region left temporal region exposing// frontal/temporal and left auxiliary bone with depression gap with // On C/S // Left frontal/parietal temporal bone with brain and Meninges damaged 6th R side. Spine intact. No // any would on the body On C/S, stomach filled with partially digested food particles (rice particles). Spleen, kidney, liver normal size and shape. Heart filled with blood.
On c/s of throat, ?// Hyoid bone ( left wing). Intestines with gas. Viscera and Hyoid bone sent for chemical analysis.
Meena Appearance found at the post-mortem : Well built obese female old body lying on its back.
External injuries :- 2 x 2 cm interpolate deep lacerated http://www.judis.nic.in 5/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 wound (Rt. side chin exposing // maxillary bone.
3x3 cm deep laceration wound Rt. side neck just below the ear lob.
6x3 cm and 4x3 cm, 2x4cm and multiple small (each 1x1 cm) interpolate lacerating wound with exposing Rt. side portal and temporal bones. Through this Meninges and Brain tissue also damaged. All are depressed type of// rebis and spine intact.
On c/s at parietal/temporal Rt face and maxillary bones with damaged Meninges/ brain tissue at half. Stomach filled with partially digested food particles seen. Spleen, kidney, liver normal size and shape no other // any where in the body. Intestine filled with gas. Hyoid bone intact. Hyoid and viscera sent for chemical analysis.
3.2 After getting the report from the Forensic Department that the viscera of the deceased did not contain any poisonous substance, he gave his final opinion after receiving the viscera report that the death of Rajendiran was caused due to poly trauma leads to Hypovolumic/Neurogesic Hemorrhagic shock and that the death of Meena was caused due to poly trauma (Head injury) leads to Hypovolumic/Hemorrhagic and Neurogesic shock. The Forensic Doctor examined the Hyoid bone and gave a certificate that it was normal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 3.3 P.W.4 – Manimegalai is a neighbour and she is a girl of 13 years old. At about 7.45 am on 04.01.2015, she had been to the house of the deceased for taking curry leaves. When she called the deceased Meena by standing outside, she did not come and so P.W.4 went inside and noticed that the deceased were in a pool of blood. She got frightened and thereafter, she told this to her mother and others.
3.4 While the Investigation Officer visited the place of occurrence P.W.6 – Subramani, who is a neighbour of the deceased, stood as the witness for the observation of Mahazar (Ex.P6) and also witnessed the taking of the blood stained cement chip and plain cement chip from the place of occurrence through seizure Mahazar (Ex.P7). P.W.5 – Meena is a hearsay witness who heard about the occurrence from the people in the Village.
3.5 While the accused was arrested on 07.01.2015 and gave the confession to the Investigation Officer, P.W.7 – Dinakaran, Village Administrative Officer stood as a witness and recovery of Rs.2000/- from the accused under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P9). On the confession given by the accused, a wooden pounder (M.O.7) which is said to have been used for the occurrence was recovered under an another Mahazar – Ex.P10 in the http://www.judis.nic.in 7/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 presence of P.W.7. On the confession that the accused had pledged the robbed jewels with a pawnbroker, the accused accompanied the Police to the pawnbroker shop. And from where the jewels (M.O.1 to M.O.4) were recovered from P.W.8 – Shankar (pawnbroker) under seizure Mahazar (EX.P11) in the presence of witnesses.
3.6 The pawnbroker – Shankar (P.W.8) has stated that the accused came to his shop at about 10 am on 04.01.2015 and pledged M.O.1 to M.O.3 and got Rs.7,000/-.
3.7 P.W.10 – Gnanasekaran, in whose auto, the accused is alleged to have travelled with a stick on the night of the occurrence has stated the said fact in his evidence. P.W.11 – Parameswari is the neighbour of the deceased who noticed the accused watching the house of the deceased at about 8 pm on 03.01.2015. P.W.12 – Ashok Kumar, scientific expert has examined the case properties sent for chemical analysis and gave Ex.P14 report that blood was detected in M.O.7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 21 and the blood on some of these articles are found to be containing human blood of ‘B’ group and the report is marked as Ex.P15.
3.8 P.W.13 – G.Selvakumar is the Investigation Officer who registered http://www.judis.nic.in 8/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 the F.I.R (Ex.P16) on 04.01.2015 at about 9 pm after receiving the complaint in Crime No.6 of 2015 under Section 302, 379 IPC and thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P7). After examining the witnesses and recording the statement, he conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared the inquest reports (Exs.P18 & P19). On the same day evening itself, he recovered the blood stained chip and plain chip from the place of occurrence; he also recovered the dresses on the body of the deceased and sent the body for post-mortem. He arrested the accused at 4 pm on 07.01.2015 and recorded his confession statement in the presence of P.W. 7 and recovered the money and the weapon used for the occurrence. After receiving the medical reports and forensic reports and after completing the investigation, charge sheet is laid against the accused under Sections 449, 302(2 counts), 392 r/w 397 IPC.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the circumstantial evidence, material objects, medical evidence, scientific evidence and other corroborative evidence of the witnesses would establish http://www.judis.nic.in 9/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 the chain of circumstances which would unfailingly link the accused to the occurrence and hence, the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 449, 302(2 counts), 392 r/w 397 (2 counts) is fair and proper and it does not require any interference.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness for the occurrence and the chain of circumstances does not connect the accused with the occurrence; the prime suspect viz.,Arumugham, whose name appears in the complaint has not been examined and no reason is also stated as to why he was not charged for the offence; the arrest and recovery was also not proved through credible evidence; P.W.8 – Shankar has stated that his shop is not open on Sundays, hence, the accused could not have sold the jewels to him on a day which fell on Sunday; no receipt was recovered from P.W.8 for getting the jewels alleged to have been pledged by the accused. When P.W.1 has stated that the accused was arrested on 05.01.2015, P.W.7 – VAO has stated that the accused was arrested on 07.01.2015 and his confession was recorded on the said day; so the evidences of P.W.10 & P.W.11 are unreliable and these witnesses were not enquired during the inquest; since there are several missing links in the chain of http://www.judis.nic.in 10/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 circumstances, it will not lead to the one and only conclusion that the accused has committed the offence and hence, the accused should be acquitted.
7. Points for consideration:-
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences under Sections 449, 302(2 counts) and 392 r/w 397(2 counts) by the learned trial Court by recording the guilt of the accused for the said offences on the basis of the evidence available on record is fair and proper?
8. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 03.01.2015, the accused trespassed into the house of the victims and had attacked the deceased Rajendiran and his wife Meena with the wooden pounder on their heads, who were sleeping then and murdered them. After murdering them, the accused had robbed the gold stud, thali and coins. So this is a case based on circumstantial evidence.
9. In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, it is the burden of the prosecution to establish the circumstances from which the guilt of the http://www.judis.nic.in 11/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 accused can be inferred. All the facts established should be consistent and connect with each other in order to form a chain which should lead to the one and only conclusion that the accused is guilty and it should exclude any other possibility.
10. In Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), the Supreme Court has laid down the five golden principles on circumstantial evidence as under:
“The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indi cated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinc tion between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by Apex Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maha rashtra where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.807:SCC (Cri) p.1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental dis tance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague con jectures from sure conclusions.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothe sis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be ex plainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”
11. The above principles have been reiterated in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1989) Supp (2) SCC 706], but with a differ ent phraseology. The said judgement speaks as under:
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hy-
http://www.judis.nic.in 13/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 pothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
12. The circumstances relied by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused are listed below:-
(a) P.W.11, who is the relative and neighbour of the deceased had noticed the accused watching the house of the deceased at about 8 pm on 03.01.2015.
(b) P.W.10 – Auto Driver noticed the accused having stick in his hand at 10.30 pm on 03.01.2015, when he left a passengers at the place of occurrence.
(c) P.W.4 – Manimegalai went to the house of the deceased to get curry leaves at about 7.45 am on 04.01.2015 and noticed that the deceased were lying in the pool of blood. Thereafter, she reported the matter to her mother and then others came to know about the occurrence.
(d) P.W.1, son of the deceased who was working in Bangalore had been to his parents place on 04.01.2015 at about 8.15 pm and he found both of his parents dead and the gold stud on the right ear of his mother and her golden mangalasutra were found to be missing.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
(e) On the confession given by the accused in the presence of P.W.7, the wooden pounder (M.O.7) was recovered.
(f) The accused pledged the jewels robbed from the body of the deceased Meena with Shankar (P.W.8) and from whom they were later recovered by the Investigation Officer.
(g) The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on the bodies of both the deceased noticed severe head injuries and opined that the death of both the deceased Rajendiran was caused due to poly trauma leads to Hypovolumic/Neurogesic Hemorrhagic shock.
(h) The Forensic Expert (P.W.12) who examined the blood stained articles seized from the place of occurrence as well as from the body of the deceased, has given his report stating that few of such articles contained human blood and it belonged to B Group.
13. P.W.1, the son of the deceased who has given the complaint (Ex.P1) has stated in his very complaint that his family has got enmity with his paternal uncle Arumugam and his family, in connection with some civil disputes between themselves. The wordings of complaints in tamil language is extracted as below:-
“v';fSf;Fk; vdJ rpj;jg;gh MWKfk; FLk;gj;jhUf;Fk; tHp jfuhW http://www.judis.nic.in 15/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 kw;Wk; ntg;gk; kuk; rk;ke;jkhf Kd;tpnuhjk; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ.”
14. For the reasons best known to the Investigation Officer, he has not started the investigation from the suspect Arumugam whose name is pointed out by the complainant himself in the complaint. Though the Investigation Officer (P.W.13) has stated that he did not examine the said Arumugam, who is the neighbour of the deceased, he has not stated any reason as to why the said Arumugam was excluded from the case and why he proceeded to arrest the accused. It was probably because Gnanasekaran’s (P.W.10) statement that while he was alighting a passenger by name Gnanasambandham at about 10.30 pm on 03.01.2015, he saw the accused had a stick in his hands and Parameswari’s (P.W.11) statement that she had noticed the accused was watching the house of the deceased from 8 pm on 03.01.2015. But curiously the alleged passenger Gnanasambandam was not examined in order to corroborate that he travelled in the auto of P.W.10 at 10.30 pm on 03.01.2015. And P.W.11 has stated in her evidence that the Police had arrested the accused on 04.01.2015 itself but the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.7) and the Investigation Officer have stated that they have arrested the accused only on 07.01.2015.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
15. P.W.10 has stated in his evidence that on 04.01.2015 is a Sunday and only because it was a holiday, he came to his native place to see his parents. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had pledged the jewels with the pawnbroker, P.W.8 – Shankar on 04.01.2015. P.W.8 had deposed that on 04.01.2015 at about 10 am, the accused came to his shop and got Rs.7,000/- by giving the jewels (M.O.1 to M.O.3). During his cross- examination he stated that his pawnbroker shop used to be closed on Sunday. Since 04.01.2015 happened to be a Sunday and a holiday for the Pawn Broker shop, it is not possible for P.W.8 to receive jewels from the accused on the said day. Most importantly there is no mention in the evidence of P.W.8 – Sankar that on 07.01.2015, the Police party came with the accused and witnesses to his shop and recovered the material objects from his shop through a seizure Mahazar. These material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the important witnesses improbablise the fact that the accused had been to the shop of P.W.8 and gave him the stolen jewels to P.W.8 and raised money.
16. As per the evidence of P.W.11, the accused was arrested by police on 04.01.2015 itself. Had the accused got arrested on 04.01.2015 itself, it http://www.judis.nic.in 17/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 would not have been possible for him to go to the pawnbroker shop on the said day. This will also falsify the evidence of the Investigating Officer who claims that the accused was arrested on 07.01.2015.
17. Usually the ornament stud would be in pairs, it is strange to note that the accused is said to have robbed only one stud by leaving the other stud on the body deceased herself. An accused who commits a double murder for the sake of stealing small jewels like studs and a mangalsutra will not leave the other stud on the body of the deceased. Further, it is unbelievable that the accused singly had committed double murder for robbing just 1 ½ sovereign of gold jewels.
18. A glaring statement has been given by P.W.13 – Investigation Officer during his cross-examination that he had not examined Arumugham because he did not have any doubt on him. When the complainant himself has stated that he has doubts on Arumugham, it is astonishing to note that P.W.13 did not get any doubt on Arumugham before giving him a clean chit. It is understandable if he had examined him and analysed the facts and other circumstances relating to him and then excluded his involvement in the crime. http://www.judis.nic.in 18/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 P.W.10 – Gnanasekaran, an Auto driver has stated that the Police examined him on the same day itself and since it happened to be a double murder and they enquired the accused also on the same day. But it is surprising why that amount of speed and sensitivity has not been shown to examine the named person in the complaint.
19. The doctor (P.W.2), who has conducted the post-mortem on the bodies of the deceased, has stated that he conducted the post-mortem on 05.01.2015 at about 11 am. According to the doctor, the deceased should have died before 16 to 20 hrs. But according to the prosecution, the deceased were murdered during the night of 03.01.2015 itself. If it is so, the rigor mortis would have set even before 16 to 20 hrs.
20. P.W.4 – Manimegalai, who first noticed the bodies of the deceased during the morning hours on 04.01.2015, has also stated in her evidence that when she saw the deceased, she noticed blood oozing from the nose of the deceased Meena. From the above evidence of the witnesses and the Investigation Officer as well, would only give an inference that the deceased had been attacked only in the morning of 04.01.2015 and not during the http://www.judis.nic.in 19/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 night of 03.01.2015, as proposed by the prosecution. Only because of that, the blood was oozing from the bodies of the deceased when the witnesses noticed the bodies on the morning of 04.01.2015.
21. Though the scientific experts, who examined the blood stain on few of the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and the clothes on the bodies of the deceased have noticed that it contained human blood and it belonged to B Group, it is of no consequence. Because with these results it has not been elucidated by the prosecution that the blood group tallies with the accused and hence, it serves as a prima facie evidence to connect the accused to the scene of crime. It has also not been established that the blood of the deceased was found in the dresses of the accused. In fact, the Investigation Officer did not recover any dresses from the deceased which had blood stain.
22. P.W.7 – VAO, has stated in his cross-examination that the wooden pounder recovered on the confession given by the accused was having an even surface but the wooden pounder shown to him in the Court and marked as M.O.7 had some scratches on it.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
23. The learned trial Judge had omitted to deal with the above mentioned material contradictions and omissions and noticed the improbabilities supplied by these materials. The accused has been arrested on 04.01.2015 itself by the Investigation Officer even before he started his investigation from the line of suspicion drawn in Ex.P1 complaint. In fact, he had not taken such line of investigation at all. The statements of the witnesses have also been sent to the Court very belatedly and the said fact was admitted by the Investigation Officer himself in his evidence.
24. It is needless to impress that in the event of fixing the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence, each and every link of the evidence produced before the Court should form a complete chain of circumstances and there should not be any gap or doubt. And the links so connected should lead to the one and only conclusion that it is the accused who committed the offence. And it should not give any other alternate probability or theory other than the one connecting the accused to the commission of the offence.
25. In this case, the occurrence is said to have taken place on the night of 03.01.2015 but the evidence of eye witnesses who noticed blood oozed out from the bodies of the deceased in the morning of 04.01.2015 coupled with the opinion of the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem make it less http://www.judis.nic.in 21/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 probable that the occurrence had taken place on the night of 03.01.2015.
26. It has been already dealt at length about the impossibility of the accused to go the pawnbroker’s shop on 04.01.2015, which is a Sunday and on which day the shop was closed. The contrary facts revealed from the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the date of arrest of the accused and the unusual type of removal of a single stud alone from the ears of the deceased Meena in a case for murder for gain etc., will also weaken the chain of circumstances. The learned trial Judge has omitted to appreciate the circumstantial evidence on the touchstone of the above said 5 golden principles laid down by the Supreme Court, before recording the guilt of the accused. Had he done so, he could have seen the break of links which led to the disruption in the chain of circumstances. In the absence of such an exercise, holding of the accused guilty on the basis of these circumstantial evidences cannot be upheld. So, we feel that it is a fit case which warrants our interference.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgement dated 08.11.2019 of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (FTC), Vellore, made in S.C.No.25 of 2016 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. http://www.judis.nic.in 22/24 Crl.A.No.325 of 2020 No costs.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
27.08.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Sni
Note: Issue Order Copy on 02.09.2021
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupathur Taluk Police Station,
Vellore District.
2.The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethi Mandram (FTC),
Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and R.N.MANJULA, J.
Sni
http://www.judis.nic.in
23/24
Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
Crl.A.No.325 of 2020
27.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
24/24