Madras High Court
Agniraj vs State Through
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, B.Pugalendhi
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on Pronounced on
13.02.2019 21.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRL. A. (MD) Nos.290 to 292 of 2015 and 230 & 242 of 2016
1 Agniraj
2 Sathyaraj
3 Paulpandi Appellants in Crl.A. (MD) No.290 of 2015
Yoganathan Appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.291 of 2015
1 Arjunan
2 Sivakumar
3 Vijayakumar
4 Suresh @ Leninkumar
5 Karanthamalai
6 Ganesan
7 Jeyakumar Appellants in Crl.A. (MD) No.292 of 2015
Vs.
State through
the Deputy Superintendent of Police
CB-CID, Madurai
(Cr. No.446 of 2012) Respondent in Crl.A. (MD)No.290-292 of 2015
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
G. Krishnan Appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.230 of 2016
vs.
1 The State represented by its
Deputy Superintendent of Police
CB-CID, Madurai
2 U. Thangaraj
3 K. Muthukumar
4 P. Kanagaraj
5 V. Chellam
6 T. Rajamani
7 T. Bose
8 A. Madhanagopal
9 R. Santhakumar
10 S. Raphael @ Kathirvel
11 S. Subramanian Respondents in Crl.A.(MD)No.230 of 2016
State represented by:
the Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
(Cr. No.446 of 2012) Appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.242 of 2016
vs.
1 Thangaraj
2 Muthukumar
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
3 Kanakakraj
4 Chellam
5 Rajamani
6 Bose
7 Mathanagopal
8 Santhakumar
9 Rafhel @ Kathirvel
10 Subramaniyan Respondents in Crl.A.(MD)No.242 of 2016
Prayer in Crl. A. (MD) Nos.290 to 292 of 2016:
Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to
call for the records relating to the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in S.C. No.72 of 2013 and set aside
the same and acquit the appellants from all the charges levelled
against them.
Prayer in Crl. A. (MD) No.230 of 2016:
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. seeking to call
for the records relating to the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in S.C. No.72 of 2013 and set aside
the same insofar as it relates to acquittal of accused 12 to 21 and
convict the said accused.
Prayer in Crl. A. (MD) No.242 of 2016:
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. seeking to call
for the records relating to the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in S.C. No.72 of 2013 and set aside
the same insofar as it relates to acquittal accused 12 to 21 and convict
the said accused.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
For appellants in Mr.Gopala Krishna Lakshmana Raju,
Crl.A. (MD) Nos.290 Sr. Counsel
of 2015 for Mr. S.G.L. Rishwanth
Mr.Gopala Krishna Lakshmana Raju,
For appellant in Crl.A.
Sr. Counsel
(MD) No.291 of 2015
for Mr. Aju Tagore
For appellants 1,2 & 4 Mr. V. Gopinath, Sr. Counsel
to 6 in Crl.A. (MD) for Mr. R. Venkateswaran
No.292 of 2015
For appellants 3 & 7 Mr. V. Gopinath, Sr. Counsel
in Crl. A (MD) No.292 for Mr. E. Somasundaram
of 2015
For appellant in Crl.A.
(MD) No.230 of 2016
and for assisting the
Mr. L. Rajiah
prosecution in Crl.A.
(MD) Nos.290-292 of
2015
For RR 2 to 11 in
Crl.A. (MD) No.230 of Mr.Gopala Krishna Lakshmana Raju,
2016 and for RR 1 to Sr. Counsel
10 in Crl.A. (MD)No. for Mr. R. Venkateswaran
242 of 2016
For respondent/State
in Crl. A. (MD) Nos.
290 – 292 of 2015, Mr. K. Chellapandian
for R1 in Crl.A. (MD) Addl. Advocate General
No.230 of 2016 and assisted by Mr. S. Chandrasekar
for appellant/State in Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A. (MD) No.242 of
2016
-----
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
COMMON JUDGMENT
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
Inasmuch as all the five instant criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Sivagangai in S.C. No.72 of 2013, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.
2 The three murders, which are the subject matter of these appeals, appear to have occasioned on account of rivalry between members of two political parties, viz., Communists and AIADMK, as is manifest from the evidence on record.
3 The schema of the facts giving rise to the present five criminal appeals are as under:
3.1 It is alleged that Arjunan's (A1's) father was the President of Periakannoor Panchayat Board for a long time and thereafter, Arjunan (A1) of Communist Party succeeded his father from 1996-2006, followed by his wife Kanakavalli, who held the said post from 2006-2011. Thus, it appears that the family members of Arjunan (A1) were holding the post of President of Periakannoor Panchayat Board for about four decades.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 3.2 While so, in the Panchayat elections held in 2011, Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife Sathya of AIADMK trounced Arjunan's (A1's) wife Kanakavalli and became the Panchayat Board President. In the said elections, Krishnan's (P.W.1's) elder brother Kathiresan (D1), Secretary, AIADMK Youth Wing, worked very hard for the victory of his sister-in-law Sathya. After Sathya became the President, she found that Arjunan's (A1's) family were drawing water illegally from the public tank without the permission of the Panchayat and so, she took steps to disconnect the water supply.
3.3 As a counterblast, the defeated side led by Arjunan (A1) were causing pinpricks for Sathya and were preventing her from taking upon any constructive work in the village. One day prior to Pongal festival in 2012, one Chandran of Periyakannoor, who had worked for Sathya's victory in the Panchayat elections, was attacked by Arjunan's (A1's) group, in connection with which, a case was registered against them in Kaalayaarkovil Police Station.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 3.4 About five months down the line, in a public function that was organised by the Panchayat in the Panchayat school, Arjunan (A1), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6), Vijayakumar (A7), Kanakaraj (A14) and Selvam (A15) made an attempt to attack Sathya with deadly weapons, which was thwarted by the villagers and hence, a case was registered against them in Kaalayaarkovil Police Station.
3.5 Kathiresan (D1) was living with his family comprising his wife Prema (P.W.12), his son Prasanna (D2) and his daughter Nikila (P.W.9) in Sivagangai Town.
3.6 13.11.2012 was a Deepavali day. On that day, Kathiresan (D1) did not come to his native village Pei Pagainjan, to visit his parents and so, on 14.11.2012, he came with his two children by his Toyota Scorpio car (M.O.1) (for brevity “the car”) driven by Boominathan (D3). After spending some time in his natal home, on the same night, i.e. on 14.11.2012, around 9.00 p.m., Kathiresan (D1), his son Prasanna (D2) aged about 12 years, his daughter Nikila (P.W.
9) aged about 8 years and his brother Krishnan (P.W.1) were proceeding in their car (M.O.1) from their natal village in Sivagangai District, to Kathiresan's (D1's) Sivagangai Town. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 3.7 Around 9.30 p.m., when their car (M.O.1) was proceeding between Nedunkulam and Ooothikulam, a lorry bearing Regn. No.TNM 3375 (M.O.2) (for brevity “the lorry”) came straight towards the car (M.O.1) in the opposite direction, as if it was going to collide. Hence, Boominathan (D3), driver of the car (M.O.1), swerved the car (M.O.1) to the left, yet, the lorry (M.O.2) grazed through the car (M.O.1) on the right side and stopped and Boominathan (D3) also parked the car (M.O.1) on the left side.
3.8 At that time, Arjunan (A1) and some named others, came by three motor bikes and some others jumped down from the lorry (M.O.2) and came towards the car (M.O.1). On the exhortation of Arjunan (A1) to eliminate everyone in the car (M.O.1), the group, armed with weapons, started to attack the car (M.O.1) and its inmates and attempted to set them on fire.
3.9 In that process, Arjunan's (A1's) gang started attacking Kathiresan (D1), who had come out of the car (M.O.1). Krishnan (P.W.1) saw the attackers and when he was chased, he escaped and hid himself in a nearby bush. The attackers mercilessly attacked and http://www.judis.nic.in 9 killed Kathiresan (D1), his 12 year old son Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3), driver of the car (M.O.1), besides inflicting serious knife injuries on the 8 year old Nikila (P.W.9). When they attempted to set fire to the car (M.O.1), men in police uniform were sighted and so, while some of the attackers fled the scene in the lorry (M.O.2), some others left the place in motor bikes.
3.10 On the complaint (Ex.P.1) lodged by Krishnan (P.W.1), Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52), Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No.446 of 2012 at 23.30 hrs. on 14.11.2012 under Sections 147,148,307, 302 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act against thirty accused and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.75), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.11.2012 at 6 a.m. 3.11 Shankar (P.W.55), Inspector of Police, took over the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and noticed the following, which find place in the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5) and the photographs (Ex.P.61 series):
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 ➢ Damaged car (M.O.1) ➢ Body of Kathiresan (D1) and his son Prasanna (D2) on the road to the right side of the car (M.O.1) ➢ Body of the driver Boominathan (D3) lying on the road on the rear side of the car (M.O.1) ➢ Scratch mark on the right side body of the car (M.O.1) due to grazing over of another vehicle with yellow paint scrappings ➢ a 10 litre while colour plastic can without cap containing around ½ litre petrol near the driver's seat (M.O.4) ➢ a 5 litre white colour plastic can without cap containing about 250 ml. of kerosene near the body of Kathiresan (D1) (M.O.7) By that time, Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, for treatment by ambulance.
3.12 The two white colour plastic cans (M.Os. 4 and 7) were sent through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory and the same were examined by Visalakshi (P.W.48), who, in her evidence as well in her report (Ex.P.
65), has stated that the liquid found in the plastic can (M.O.4) was petrol mixed with diesel and the one in the plastic can (M.O.7) is found to be diesel. She has also stated that both petrol and diesel are inflammable liquids.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 3.13 Shankar (P.W.55) requisitioned the services of the police photographer (P.W.46), finger print expert (P.W.35) and forensic sciences expert (P.W.44) to collect the clue materials. The bodies of Kathiresan (D1), Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3) were sent to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai. Police pickets were posted around the area to maintain law and order and to prevent any disturbance to the crime scene. He prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5) in the presences of witnesses, viz., Thangavelu (P.W.20) and Dinesh Kumar (not examined). In the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5), the above facts noted by him were stated. He also prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P.78).
3.14 From the place of occurrence, Shankar (P.W.55) seized the following articles under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.6):
➢ Toyoto Scorpio Car bearing Regn. No.TN 69 M 2988 – (M.O.1) ➢ Red Cell brand black colour mobile phone (M.O.3) ➢ Samsung brand red colour mobile phone (M.O.5) ➢ Union Bank ATM Card (M.O.6) ➢ A 10 litre plastic kerosene can of white colour with about ½ litre petrol in it in open condition (M.O.4) http://www.judis.nic.in 12 ➢ A 5 litre plastic kerosene can of white colour with about ¼ litre petrol in it in open condition (M.O.7) ➢ A back case of grey colour of Nokia mobile (M.O.8) ➢ Blood stained tar and aggregate taken from the tar road where Kathiresan's (D1's) body was found (M.O.9) ➢ Blood stained tar and aggregate taken from the tar road where Boominathan's (D3's) body was found (M.O.10) ➢ Blood stained grass and soil taken from the place where Prasanna's (D2's) body was found (M.O.11) 3.15 Prithiviraj (P.W.46), police photographer, came to the place of occurrence and took photographs which were marked as Ex.P. 61 series and the compact disc was marked as M.O.26. He has stated in his evidence that he had also photographed some finger prints at the request of the police.
3.16 M. Vijayan (P.W.35), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, came to the place of occurrence at 23.40 hrs. on 14.11.2012 and examined the car (M.O.1) and lifted six finger prints (P.1 to P.6) and had them photographed. Vijayan (P.W.35) has also stated in his evidence that the police photographer helped him to take photographs of the chance finger prints.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13 3.17 On the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shankar (P.W.55), conducted inquest on the body of Kathiresan (D1) and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P.79. Senthur Pandian (P.W.
52) conducted inquest on the body of Prasanna (D2) and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P.76. Raja Somasundaram (P.W.53), Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station conducted inquest on the body of Boominathan (D3) and the inquest report was marked as (Ex.P.77).
3.18 Requisition was given for post-mortem and Dr.Banugopanar (P.W.34) conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificates, viz., Ex.P.38 qua Boominathan (D3), Ex.P.39 qua Prasanna (D2) and Ex.P.40 qua Kathiresan (D1).
3.19 Dr. Banugopanar (P.W.34), in his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificates (Exs.P.38-P.40) found the following injuries:
a) Ex.P.40 qua Kathiresan (D1):
“External Injuries:
(1) 15 x 10 x 8 (cm) deep crushed lacerated injuries with contused and abraded margins over the right frontal, temporal, parital and occipital region exposing skull bone pieces and extruding brain matter http://www.judis.nic.in 14 (2) 3 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration over right ear lobe (3) 3 x 2 (cm) abrasion over left cheek Internal examination:
Head and Neck: Communited fractures due to crush injury bone pieces mixed with brain substances with clotted blood involving Rt temporal parital and occipital bones of skull with intra cranival blood collection about 300 ml. Hyoid bone intact.
Thorax and Abdomen: Rib cage intact. Heart intact. Cavity empty, both lungs intact on c/s pale stomach intact. Contained about 400 gms. of partially digested food particles. Intestines, liver, spleen both kidneys and all other organs severe intact on c/s found pale. Bladder empty. Spine and long bones intact. Viscera sent for toxicological analysis. PM was concluded at 1.40 p.m. on 15.11.2012.
Time of death: 12-16 hrs. prior to the commencement of PM Cause of death: Hyporolemic shock and haemorrhage due to deadly injuries sustained by the individual.”
b) Ex.P.39 qua Prasanna (D2):
“External examination of injuries:
(1) 10 x 3 x 4 (cm) laceration over left occipital (2) 6 x 2 x 3 (cm) laceration over occipital region around midline (3) 4 x 3 x 3 (cm) laceration over right occipit (4) 6 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration over left parietal region (5) 1 x 1 x 1 (cm) laceration below the chin (6) 5 x 1 (cm) abrased contusion linear in shape over left side chest (7) 6 x 1 (cm) linear contusion over left side chest (8) 7 x 1 (cm) linear contusion over right side of chest Internal examination:
Head and Neck: Communited fractures over both parietal and occipital bone of skull with blood clots. Lacerated brain substance 6 x 3 x 2 cm with contused margins. Hyoid bone intact.
Thorux and abdomen: Rib cage intact. Heard intact cavity empty on c/s pale. Lungs intact and pale stomach intact contained 300 gms. of partially digested food particles present. Intestines, liver, spleen, both kidneys and http://www.judis.nic.in 15 all other organ intact on c/s pale. Bladder empty. Spine and long bones intact. Visceras sent for toxicological analysis. PM concluded at 12.00 noon on 15.11.2012.
Time of death: 12-15 hrs. before commencement of PM Cause of death: Hyporolemic shock and haemorrhage due to deadly head injuries sustained by the individual.”
c) Ex.P.38 qua Boominathan (D3):
“External examination of injuries:
(1) 10 x 7 x 7 (cm) laceration over the left and right parital and occipital region with underlying clotted blood (2) 6 x 2 x 2 (cm) laceration over right temporal regions of scalp (3) 2 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration behind the left ear in occipital region of scale (4) 3 x 2 x 1 (cm) laceration over right side jaw (5) Contusions 7 x 6 cm over both side of face bilateral periorbital swellings (6) 1 x 1 x 2 (cm) stab injury above left collar bone (7) 1 x 1 x 1 (cm) stab wound above right collar bone (8) 1 x 1 x 1 (cm) stab wound above right collar bone lateral to (No.7) wound (9) 5 x 3 x 2 (cm) laceration and 2 x 1 x 1 cm lacerations over back of right hand.
All erderiorities on external examination intact. Internal examination:
Head & Neck: Communited fractures over both parital, temporal and occipital bones with clotted blood. Lacerated brain substance with confused margins of both temporal, parital and occipital regions with intra cranial blood and blood clots about 150 ml seen. Hyoid bone intact.
Chest & abdomen:
ON c/s. Ribs intact. Heart cavity empty. Lungs intact on c/s. Found pale stomach intact contained 400 gms. of partially digested food material. Liver, kidneys, spleen intact on c/s. Pale bladder empty. All other organs on c/s pale and intact. Spine and long bones intact. Viscera sent for toxicological analysis. PM was concluded on 10.20 a.m. On 15.11.2012.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Time of death: 12-14 hrs. before commencement of PM Cause of death:Hyporolemic shock due to haemorrhage caused by deadly head injuries sustained by the individual.” 3.20 Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, for treatment, where, she was examined by Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33), who, in his evidence as well in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P.36), has noted the following six injuries:
➢ Lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 x 5 (cm) in the frontal area of the head ➢ Lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 x 5 (cm) in the parietal area ➢ Lacerated wound measuring 10 x 5 x 5 (cm) in the occipital area in the right parietal bone ➢ Fracture in the skull in the left parietal region ➢ Lacerated wound measuring 5 x 1 x 1 (cm) in the parietal area ➢ Laterated wound measuring 10 x 3 x 1 (cm) in the parieto occipital region 3.21 As regards the history of assault, it is stated in the evidence of Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33) and in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P.36) as follows:
“Alleged H/o assault by 5 persons with aruval at 10.10 p.m. Near Oothikulam Bus Stop.” http://www.judis.nic.in 17 3.22 Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33), in his evidence, has stated that Nikila (P.W.9) was accompanied by a lady Constable and she (P.W.9) told him that she was attacked with an aruval by five persons at 10.10 p.m. near Oothikulam Bus Stop and that he gave her first aid and referred her to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for intensive treatment. However, Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, a private hospital with the state-
of-the art facilities, where, Dr. Muthu (P.W.36) examined her at 12.20 a.m. on 15.11.2012 and noted sutured injuries, since Nikila (P.W.9) was already given first aid at the Government Hospital, Sivagangai. The accident certificate issued by Meenakshi Mission Hospital was marked as Ex.P.50.
3.23 Dr. Bhagath Singh (P.W.37), Neuro Surgeon of Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, had the scan of Nikila's (P.W.9's) head portion taken and noted 11 injuries in her head region. He performed a surgery on her head on 15.11.2012 and after treatment, she was discharged from the hospital on 24.11.2012. Nikila's medical reports were marked as Exs. P.51 to P.53. Dr. Bhagath Singh (P.W.37) issued discharge summary (Ex.P.54). He also issued Wound Certificate (Ex.P. http://www.judis.nic.in 18
55), where, he has stated that injuries 1 to 5 were simple in nature and injuries 6 to 11 were grievous in nature.
3.24 On the order dated 17.11.2012 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D, (Ex.P.80), the case was transferred from the Sivagangai Taluk Police Station to the CB- CID, Madurai, for investigation. Dayalan Tamilselvan (P.W.57), Deputy Superintendent of Police, took over the investigation of the case and started examining the witnesses. He would, hereinafter, be referred to as “the I.O.”.
3.25 The following chart will show the date of arrest/surrender of each accused and the property recovered from the accused pursuant to the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mahazar (panchanama) for it:
http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Accused Date of arrest/surrender/police Seized Object Seizure custody taken/details of Mahazar anticipatory bail granted Arjunan-A1 Arrested on 26.11.2012 Ex.P.8 Nokia Cell Phone (M.O.12) Agniraj -A2 Surrendered on 29.11.2012 before Ex.P.26 Aruval (M.O.21) J.M. Pudukkottai – Custody taken Ex.P.29 Hero Honda bike on 05.12.2012 (M.O.24) Sathyaraj-A3 Surrendered on 29.11.2012 before Ex.P.27 Aruval (M.O.22) J.M. Pudukkottai – Custody taken on 05.12.2012 Palpandi-A4 Surrendered on 04.12.2012 before Ex.P.22 Aruval (M.O.17) J.M. No.II, Sivagangai – Custody Ex.P.24 Hero Honda bike taken during 07.12.2012 to (M.O.19) 10.12.2012 Sivakumar-A5 Surrendered on 07.12.2012 before Ex.P.23 Knife (M.O.18) J.M. No.II, Sivagangai – Custody taken on 10.12.2012 Yoganathan - Surrendered on 29.11.2012 before Ex.P.28 Long size aruval A6 J.M. Pudukottai – Custody taken (M.O.23) during 03.12.2012 to 05.12.2012 Vijayakumar - Arrested on 07.12.2012 at 8 a.m. Ex.P.19 Lorry (M.O.2) A7 Suresh @ Arrested on 26.11.2012 at 9 a.m. Ex.P.12 Aruval (M.O.16) Lenin Kumar A8 Karandhamalai Anticipatory bail granted on -- --
A9 18.04.2013 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No.
6487 of 2013
Ganesan - A10 Arrested on 26.11.2012 at 12 hrs. Ex.P.11 Nokia Cell Phone
(M.O.13)
Passport (M.O.14)
Hero Honda bike
(M.O.15)
Jayakumar - Arrested on 13.12.2012 at 1.15 Ex.P.31 Stick (M.O.25)
A11 p.m.
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
Accused Date of arrest/surrender/police Seizure Seized Object
custody taken/details of Mahazar
Anticipatory bail granted
Thangaraj - Arrested on 27.11.2012 at 10 a.m. Ex.P.88 Nokia Cell Phone
A12 (M.O.41)
Muthukumar - Arrested on 07.12.2012 at 8 a.m. -- --
A13
Kanakaraj - Arrested on 13.12.2012 at 8 a.m. -- --
A14
Selvam - A15 Arrested on 07.12.2012 at 8 a.m. -- --
Rajamani - Arrested on 13.12.2012 at 8 a.m. --
A16
Bose - A17 Arrested on 13.12.2012 at 8 a.m. -- --
Madanagopal Arrested on 07.12.2012 at 8 a.m. Ex.P.98 --
A18
Shanthakumar Arrested on 27.11.2012 -- --
A19
Rafel @ Arrested on 27.11.2012 at 10 a.m. Ex.P.87 Nokia Cell Phone
Kathirvel - (M.O.41)
A20
Subramanian - Arrested on 27.11.2012 at 2.30 p.m. Ex.P.89 Nokia Cell Phone
A21 (M.O.42)
3.26 The finger prints of the accused arrested in this case were lifted by Jerry Louis (P.W.59) and were sent to Vijayan (P.W.35) for comparison. After comparing the chance finger prints with the finger prints of the accused, Vijayan (P.W.35) has given his report (Ex.P.47), wherein, he has stated as follows:
“The chance print marked as P1 is identical with left thumb finger print of Akkiniraj (30/12), S/o Arjunan (A2) The chance print marked as P5 is identical with right index finger print of Sathiyaraj (25/12), S/o Akkinipandi (A3) http://www.judis.nic.in 21 The remaining chance prints marked as P2, P3, P4, P6, N7 and N8 are not identical with any one of the finger prints of above said sixteen accused.” The photographs and the chance finger prints were marked as Ex.P.49.
3.27 At this juncture, it may be relevant to recapitulate that Janakiram (P.W.44), Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, had examined the car (M.O.1) and had the paint flakes taken from it. This was sent through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter dated 18.01.2013 (Ex.P.67). After the arrest of Vijayakumar (A7), pursuant to his disclosure, the lorry (M.O.2) was seized on 07.12.2012 by the police and was examined by Janakiram (P.W.44) on the same day. Janakiram (P.W.44) took the paint flakes from the lorry (M.O.2) and the same were sent through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter dated 26.03.2013 (Ex.P.66) with a request to compare, examine and analyse the paint flakes taken from the car (M.O.1) and the lorry (M.O.
2) and send a report.
http://www.judis.nic.in 22 3.28 Accordingly, Hemalatha (P.W.49), Scientific Officer, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, has, in her evidence as well in the report (Ex.P.68), given the following opinion:
“The yellow paint streaks on item 1a & item 1b and the yellow paint coatings on the flakes, item 2 and item 4 are similar. Hence, the yellow paint streaks on item 1a and 1b could have come from the lorry TNM 3375 from where the paint flakes items 2 and 4 were reported to have been collected.
Items 1a,1b and the unexponded portion of items 2 to 5, packed under this office seal, are returned herewith.” 3.29 Kavitha (P.W.50), Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II inspected the car (M.O.1) on 11.12.2012 at the request of the police and gave her report (Ex.P.69), wherein, she has noted as follows:
“Front LHS and RHS side view mirror broken Front LHS door moving glass broken Front LHS door moving glass frame broken Rear RHS window fixed glass broken Rear RHS moving glass broken Rear RHS tyre mudguard scratches Front RHS door damage and scratches Rear RHS door damage and stratches Front extra pumber sctraches” 3.30 Likewise, she examined the lorry (M.O.2) and noted as follows in the Inspection Report (Ex.P.70).
“Front RHS Pumper Pressing inside and scratches Front RHS Tyre mudguard damage” http://www.judis.nic.in 23 She also examined all the four motor bikes which were seized by the police in this case and has given individual reports, viz., Exs.P.71 to P. 74. 3.31 After examining the witnesses and collecting various reports, the I.O. (P.W.57) completed the investigation and filed final report in P.R.C. No.3 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistate No.II, Sivagangai against 21 accused. Since the CB-CID had deleted the names of many of the accused named by Krishnan (P.W.1) in the complaint and whose names figured in the FIR, notice was issued to Krishnan (P.W.1) for his objections, if any. Krishnan (P.W.1) did not file any protest application, however, filed a memo (Ex.D.10) stating that he has no objection in the deletion of some of the accused in the charge sheet.
3.32 After the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No.72 of 2013 for trial. The Court of Session framed the following charges:
http://www.judis.nic.in 24 Array of Charge No. Provision of law under which charged accused 1 A1 to A21 Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC 2 A1 & A9 to Section 147 IPC A11 2 A2 to A8 Section 148 IPC 3 A1 to A11 Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 4 A2 Section 302 IPC (3 counts) 5 A3 Section 302 IPC (3 counts) 6 A4 Section 302 IPC (3 counts) 7 A6 Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Nikila (P.W.9) 8 A1 Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC for instigating the others to murder the deceased 9 A1 Section 307 read with 114 IPC for the attack on Nikila (P.W.9) 10 A1 & A5 to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC A11 (3 counts each) for the murder of Kathiresan (D1), Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3).
11 A1 to A5 & A7 Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC to A11 for the attempt to murder of Nikila (P.W.
9) 12 A12 & A19 to Section 212 IPC for harbouring Agniraj A21 (A2), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6), Vijayakumar (A7) and Muthukumar (A13) after the attack 13 A12 & A19 to Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC A21 for abetment.
When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”. http://www.judis.nic.in 25 3.33 To prove their case, the prosecution examined 58 witnesses, marked 114 exhibits and 46 material objects. On behalf of the accused, 13 exhibits were marked, however, none was examined. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.
3.34 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 29.09.2015, acquitted A12 to A21 of all the charges, however, convicted and sentenced A1 to A11 as follows:
Provision of law under which Name of the accused Sentence convicted Arjunan (A1) S.147 IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count.
S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. http://www.judis.nic.in 26 Provision of law under which Name of the accused Sentence convicted Agniraj (A2) S.148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I. S. 302 (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count. S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. Sathyaraj (A3) S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I. S. 302 (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count. S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. http://www.judis.nic.in 27 Name of the accused Provision of law under which Sentence convicted Palpandi (A4) S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I. S. 302 (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count. S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I.. Sivakumar (A5) S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I. S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count. S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I.. http://www.judis.nic.in 28 Yoganathan (A6) S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I. S.3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S. 307 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 month
S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count.
Vijayakumar (A7) S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default to undergo 1 month R.I. S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to undergo 1 month R.I. for each count.
S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
http://www.judis.nic.in
29
Suresh @ Lenin S. 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
Kumar (A8) 500/-, in default to undergo
1 month R.I.
S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I. for
each count
S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
Karandhamalai (A9) S. 147 IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default, to undergo
1 month R.I.
S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I. for
each count
S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
http://www.judis.nic.in
30
Ganesan (A10) S. 147 IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default, to undergo
1 month R.I.
S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I. for
each count
S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
Jayakumar (A11) S. 147 IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default, to undergo
1 month R.I.
S. 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
S.302 r/w 149 IPC (3 counts) Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/-
for each count, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I. for
each count
S.307 r/w 149 IPC 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month R.I.
3.35 Assailing the aforesaid judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Trial Court, the instant criminal appeals have been filed as tabulated hereunder:
http://www.judis.nic.in 31 Crl. A. (MD) Appellant(s) Prayer No. 290 of 2015 Agniraj (A2) Challenging their conviction and Sathyaraj (A3) sentence Paulpandi (A4) Challenging his conviction and 291 of 2015 Yoganathan (A6) sentence Arjunan (A1) Sivakumar (A5) Vijayakumar (A7) Challenging their conviction and 292 of 2015 Suresh @ Leninkumar (A8) sentence Karanthamalai (A9) Ganesan (A10) Jeyakumar (A11) Krishnan Challenging the acquittal of A12 230 of 2016 (P.W.1/de facto complainant) to A21 Challenging the acquittal of A12 242 of 2016 State to A21
4 During the hearing of these appeals, this Court observed that some additional evidence were required to be taken in this case under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, P.W.59 to P.W.65 were examined and Exs.P.115 to P.142 were marked.
5 Jerry Louis (P.W.59), Head Constable, CB-CID, has, in his evidence, stated that on the orders of the I.O., he took the finger prints of Arjunan (A1) and Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) on 26.11.2012; Thangaraj (A12), Shanthakumar (A19), Rafel @ Kathirvel (A20) and http://www.judis.nic.in 32 Subramanian (A21) on 27.11.2012; Agniraj (A2), Sathyaraj (A3) and Yoganathan (A6) on 05.12.2012; Vijayakumar (A7), Muthukumar (A13), Madanagopal (A18) and Selvam (A15) on 07.12.2012; Palpandi (A4) and Sivakumar (A5) on 12.12.2012. The finger prints taken by him, along with opinion sheet, photographs and report were marked as Exs.P.115 to P.130.
6 P.W.60 to P.W.65 were witnesses who were examined to show the reason for deleting Premkumar, Chandran, Murugan, Muthupandian and Kalyana Sundaram respectively from the final report. Aravind (P.W.65) was examined to say that he collected the call data records from the mobile service providers concerned. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the evidence of P.W.59 to P.W.65 and they denied the same.
7 The prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that a murderous assault took place on 14.11.2012 between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. on the Sivagangai – Ilayangudi Main Road near Oothikulam, in which, Kathiresan (D1), Prasanna (D2) and Boominathan (D3) were murdered on the spot and Nikila (P.W.9) suffered a murderous assault, but, providentially survived.
http://www.judis.nic.in 33 8 The question is whether A1 to A11 are the perpetrators of the crime. In a case based on direct evidence, motive pales into insignificance. However, the prosecution have alleged certain motive against the accused, which requires to be considered at the outset.
9 It is the case of the prosecution that Arjunan (A1) was a member of the Communist Party and he and his father were holding the post of President of Periakannoor Panchayat Board continuously until their family lost in the Panchayat elections to Sathya, wife of Krishnan (P.W.1) and the sister-in-law of Kathiresan (D1). After the loss, Arjunan (A1) and his group members were continuously creating troubles for the newly elected President and there were several skirmishes between them. To prove this fact, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), his brother Ramesh (P.W.11), Prema (P.W.12-wife of Kathiresan-D1) and Sekar (P.W.19), Vice President of the Panchayat Board. The aforesaid witnesses have stated that Arjunan's (A1's) family were continuously holding the post of Panchayat Board President for about four decades and Arjunan's (A1's) wife Kanakavalli was defeated by Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife Sathya in the 2011 Panchayat elections.
http://www.judis.nic.in 34 10 Krishnan (P.W.1) has stated that Arjunan (A1) and his group were preventing his wife from carrying out any developmental work in the village; in the year 2012, one day prior to Pongal festival, the accused assaulted one Chandran of Periakannoor, who had worked for the victory of his wife Sathya in the elections, in connection with which, a case was registered in Kaalayarkovil Police Station; five months thereafter, there was a function in the Government school at Periakannoor, in which, Arjunan (A1), Selvam (A15), Vijayakumar (A7), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6) and Kanakaraj (A14) came there armed with weapons to attack his wife and in this connection, a case was registered against them in Kaalayarkovil Police Station; on the next day, two persons, viz., Muthukumar and Balaji belonging to his camp were attacked by Sathyaraj (A3) and Sivakumar (A5), in connection with which, a police case was registered; a computer was found missing from the Panchayat school and a mike set was also found missing from the local temple, in connection with which, a complaint was given to the Kaalayarkovil Police Station; Sathyaraj (A3) and Yoganathan (A6) were working under a Panchayat contractor by name Jayakumar as Operator and Supervisor, respectively, of the pumping station; they both were removed because there were lot of complaints against them from the public.
http://www.judis.nic.in 35 11 Sekar (P.W.19) has stated that he is an AIADMK functionary and in the year 2012, his wife took the contract for the maintenance of the Periakannoor Pumping Station falling within the Panchayat and since there were several complaints against Sathyaraj (A3) and Yoganathan (A6) who were working as Operator and Supervisor respectively under the erstwhile contractor Jayakumar, they were axed.
12 The learned counsel for the accused had extensively cross- examined Krishnan (P.W.1) on the aspect of motive. They have not denied that Arjunan (A1) belonged to the Communist Party. In fact, in the cross-examination, it has been suggested that there was a communal clash between the uppercaste, to which Krishnan (P.W.1) belongs and Dalits, for which cause, Arjunan (A1), though a caste Hindu, but, being a member of the Communist Party, had gone in support of the Dalits. It is also on record that Arjunan (A1) is also a relative of Krishnan (P.W.1) and not a stranger. The defence have also not denied the fact that Arjunan's (A1's) father was the President of the Panchayat Board for a long time, following which, Arjunan (A1) became the President and his wife succeeded him, until she was defeated in the 2011 Panchayat elections.
http://www.judis.nic.in 36 13 The learned Senior Counsel for the accused contended that the Panchayat elections are not fought on party lines and therefore, the motive alleged that there were disputes between AIADMK and Community Party stands negated. We are aware that officially, the Panchayat elections are not contested on party lines. But, we cannot ignore the fact that party politics plays a pivotal role in Panchayat elections, though candidates will not contest on official symbols of recognised political parties. The accused have not denied the fact that Arjunan's (A1's) wife lost to Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife nor have they denied the fact that Kathiresan (D1) was the Secretary of AIADMK Youth Wing of Sivagangai District.
14 As regards the incident that took place in the Panchayat school, the defence have suggested to Krishnan (P.W.1) that Arjunan (A1) came for the meeting and a quarrel ensued, in which, Arjunan (A1) was assaulted by Krishnan's (P.W.1's) group, in connection with which, a case was registered against Krishnan (P.W.1) and his wife in Kaalayarkovil Police Station. Krishnan (P.W.1) has accepted this. The defence contended that the complaint given by Krishnan (P.W.1) against Arjunan (A1) was closed by the police and the complaint given by Arjunan against Krishnan (P.W.1) and his wife had culminated in a http://www.judis.nic.in 37 prosecution, which is pending. This only confirms that there was vicious enmity between Krishnan's (P.W.1's) group and Arjunan's (A1's) group and therefore, it cannot be stated that Arjunan's (A1's) group did not have any motive against Krishnan's (P.W.1's) group.
15 The learned Senior Counsel for the accused further contended that the evidence on record shows that the motive was primarily against the wife of Krishnan (P.W.1) and therefore, there is no reason for the accused to attack Krishnan's (P.W.1's) brother Kathiresan (D1). The evidence on record shows that Kathiresan (D1) was a prominent AIADMK functionary in the district, inasmuch as, he was the Secretary of the Youth Wing of the party and in the Panchayat elections, he had worked hard for the success of Sathya, his sister-in- law, who was competing against the wife of Arjunan (A1). Though Panchayat elections are not officially conducted on political lines, yet, it is common knowledge that mainstream politicians will field their womenfolk in such elections and ensure that they emerge victorious. The evidence on record establishes that there was vicious enmity between Arjunan (A1) group and Kathiresan (D1) group, post the 2011 Panchayat elections.
http://www.judis.nic.in 38 Presence of Krishnan (P.W.1) along with Kathiresan (D1) at the time of occurrence:
16 It is the case of the prosecution that Krishnan (P.W.1) also travelled along with his brother Kathiresan (D1) from their native village to Sivagangai Town on the fateful day, which has been strongly refuted by the defence. The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that Krishnan (P.W.1) was not there at the time of occurrence and that he was planted there subsequently.
17 13.11.2012 was a Deepavali day. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.11.2012, Kathiresan (D1) came with his family members sans his wife Prema (P.W.12), to his native village and after having dinner there, he was returning to Sivagangai Town by car (M.O.
1). Prema (P.W.12), in her evidence, has stated that on 13.11.2012, they were not able to go to the village and hence, on 14.11.2012, her husband and her two children went by car (M.O.1) driven by Boominathan (D3). She has further stated that as she had to go to school, she did not accompany them. Concededly, Prema (P.W.12) was working as a school teacher in Sivagangai. She has further stated that on 14.11.2012, around 9.00 p.m., her husband called her and told her that he is returning to Sivagangai Town. That apart, she has stated http://www.judis.nic.in 39 that only from her husband, she knew that the accused were inimical towards him. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has been working as a teacher for about 22 years and knows very less about politics, despite which, the accused have cross-examined her elaborately and asked her about her husband's friendship with Ministers.
18 Krishnan (P.W.1) and Nikila (P.W.9) have stated in their evidence that Kathiresan (D1) came to his native village with his two children on 14.11.2012 and after having dinner, he (P.W.1) also joined them in their return journey to Sivagangai Town by the same car. Ramesh (P.W.11) has corroborated this evidence and has stated that Krishnan (P.W.1) also joined them. The presence of Krishnan (P.W.1) at the scene of occurrence at and around that time has been spoken to by Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), the eyewitness and Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7), who are all witnesses, who came to the place of occurrence shortly after the attack.
19 For the present, we may keep the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), Nikila (P.W.9) and Ramesh (P.W.11) http://www.judis.nic.in 40 in the back burner and analyse the evidence of Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7).
20 Elango (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that he is working as Head Constable, Grade-I in Ilayangudi Police Station; on 14.11.2012, he, along with Dharmendran, Police Constable 666 (not examined) produced an accused who was arrested, in Ilayangudi P.S.Cr. No.529 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, who was in charge of the Ilayangudi Court, between 2.30 p.m. and 2.45 p.m.; the Magistrate remanded the accused and the accused was lodged in the Sub Jail at Sivagangai around 8.30 p.m. and 8.45 p.m.; thereafter, they came to the bus stop for taking a bus to Ilayangudi, but, did not get any bus; at that time, they saw a Tata Magic van going towards Ilayangudi and hence, requested the driver (P.W.6) to give them lift upto Ilayangudi; the driver (P.W.6) obliged and they were proceeding towards Ilayangudi; around 9.40 p.m., when they were near Oothikulam, he saw a Scorpio car parked on the right extreme margin and a lorry parked on the left extreme margin on the opposite side; since they thought that it was an accident, the driver of their vehicle slowed down; at that time, a person with a stick came near their vehicle and asked them to move without stopping; http://www.judis.nic.in 41 therefore, the driver of the TATA Magic van (P.W.6) did not stop and proceeded a little further; however, they asked the driver to stop the vehicle and decided to go back to see what it was all about; hence, the duo, Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined), went near the car (M.O.1) and on seeing them in police uniform, the assailants who were there, went away in the lorry (M.O.2) and by four motor bikes; on going near the car (M.O.1), they found three dead bodies around the car (M.O.1); within a short time, a person came running to the place and started wailing on seeing the three dead bodies and told them that the deceased were his brother, his nephew and their driver. Elango (P.W.3) has further stated that he informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the incident; they stopped a Maruti car, which was passing by at that time and asked the occupants in that car to inform the ambulance; while all this was happening, within five minutes, a B.L.S. Private bus came on the same road from Ilayangudi, from which, five Police Constables who were travelling, got down and joined him; soon thereafter, more police reinforcements reached the spot.
http://www.judis.nic.in 42 21 Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), in his evidence, has stated that he is the driver of Tata Magic van; on 14.11.2012, around 9.00 p.m. to 9.15 p.m., while he was proceeding towards Sathamangalam, two Constables stopped his vehicle near Ambedkar statue in Sivagangai and asked for lift saying that they will get down en route; they got into his van and around 9.45 p.m., when his van reached Oothikulam, he saw a car on the right side of the road and a lorry on the left side of the road and thought that an accident had taken place; he saw three dead bodies around the car and a man wearing a white shirt weeping.
22 Selvaraj (P.W.7), has, in his evidence, stated that he is the Conductor of B.L.S. Bus Service and on 14.11.2012, the bus was proceeding from Sooraanam towards Sivagangai on its last trip for the day and around 9.50 p.m., near Nedungulam, he saw a damaged car and thought that an accident had taken place; there were twelve passengers on board, of which, five were policemen, who boarded at Ilayangudi and were going towards Sivagangai; out of curiosity, he stopped the bus and got down along with five Police Constables who were travelling in the bus and found three dead bodies around the car and a man sitting and wailing; thereafter, he took the bus and proceeded further on the journey.
http://www.judis.nic.in 43 23 Senthilvel (P.W.4), Police Constable, Grade-I, attached to Armed Reserve, has stated that on 14.11.2012, he was posted on bandobust duty at the office of the Thasildar, Ilayangudi and after that, he came to Ilayangudi Police Station and reported to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on his orders, he was returning to his battalion in Sivagangai by B.L.S. Bus Service; along with him, there were five other Constables attached to the Armed Reserve, viz., Rajamani, Anbarasu, Tamilarasan, Anbuselvan and Saravanan; when the bus crossed Nedungulam and reached Oothikulam, the driver stopped the bus on seeing a car parked on the left side; he (P.W.4) and the other Constables alighted and saw a Scorpio car parked in the left margin of the road with three dead bodies around it and a girl weeping near a dead boy; he also saw a man sitting there and weeping.
24 The learned Senior Counsel for the accused contended that there are discrepancies in the evidence of these four witnesses, viz., Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7), inasmuch as Ilango (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that when the Tata Magic van slowed down near the place of http://www.judis.nic.in 44 occurrence, a person with a stick asked the driver to move away, whereas, Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) has, in his evidence, stated that two persons who were standing there, asked him to keep moving. In our opinion, this cannot be termed as a serious discrepancy at all. The general tenor of the evidence of Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) is that Elango (P.W.3) and the other Constable asked for lift around 9.00 p.m. from the Ambedkar statue at Sivagangai and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) obliged them. When the van of Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) neared the place of occurrence, a damaged Scorpio car was seen and naturally, out of curiosity, the van slowed down. According to Elango (P.W.3), one person with a stick asked them to move away, but, according to Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), two persons asked them to keep moving. Perhaps, Elango (P.W.3) had noticed only one person and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) had noticed two persons. But, the fact remains that the Tata Magic van did not stop there itself, but, proceeded a little away and on the instructions of Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) stopped the van and Elango (P.W.3) and the other Constable walked near the car (M.O.
1). Naturally, on seeing the policemen in uniform, the accused would have taken to their heels. Had Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) been planted by the police, they would have been made to http://www.judis.nic.in 45 identify the accused themselves. But, they had not identified the accused.
25 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that the police did not examine Dharmendran, Constable 666, the other Constable, who had allegedly accompanied Elango (P.W.3.) In our opinion, the non-examination of Dharmendran is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) stayed at the spot until the police reached there after receiving information and therefore, the I.O. would have had no difficulty in knowing about them. Similarly, Selvaraj (P.W.7), Conductor of B.L.S. Bus and Armed Reserve Constable Senthilvel (P.W.4) who travelled in the bus, also came to the place of occurrence en route from Ilayangudi to Sivagangai side. Thinking that an accident had taken place, the bus stopped and six Constables got down from the bus and found three dead bodies and a man weeping. The Constables also remained in the place. Shankar (P.W.55), Inspector of Police (the first I.O.) has stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, Elango (P.W.3), Dharmendran, Constable 666 (not examined), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Armed Reserve Constable, Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and the other four Constables who travelled by B.L.S. Bus with Senthilvel (P.W.4), were http://www.judis.nic.in 46 there. He has recorded all their statements even before the CB-CID took up the investigation. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that only one Constable was examined and the other five Constables who travelled in B.L.S. Bus were not examined and therefore, the evidence of Senthilvel (P.W.4) and Selvaraj (P.W.7) is not worthy of acceptance, cannot be countenanced. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted, and proof of a “fact' is dependent on the quality and not the quantity of witnesses.
26 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that Senthilvel (P.W.4) did not speak about the presence of Elango (P.W.3) in the place of occurrence. In our opinion, Elango (P.W.3) was a regular Law and Order Constable, who was attached to Ilayangudi Police Station, whereas, Senthilvel (P.W.4) was attached to Armed Reserve battalion of Sivagangai. However, Elango (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that after he had come to the spot, a B.L.S. bus came from Ilayangudi side, from which, five Constables alighted. It must be noted that Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7) have not named any accused nor given the name of Krishnan (P.W.1), because, they did not know either the accused or Krishnan (P.W.1) earlier. They have only stated about the http://www.judis.nic.in 47 presence of three dead bodies around the car (M.O.1) and a man wailing saying that his brother and his brother's son had been killed.
27 From a reading of the evidence of Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), it is seen that they were passing through that road at the time of occurrence and on seeing Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined), who were in police uniform, the attackers fled; within a very short time, after Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) went near the car (M.O.1) and found three dead bodies, one person came there and started wailing after seeing the three dead bodies and the injured girl. As observed, that person is obviously Krishnan (P.W.1), for, unless he had accompanied the deceased and had fled on the commencement of the attack and hid himself nearby, he could not have come to the place of occurrence in such a short time. It will be ludicrous to infer that he was clairvoyant and anticipating the attack, he descended at the place of occurrence from out of the blue. Therefore, the man identified by Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) is obviously Krishnan (P.W.1) and none else. To recapitulate, Elango (P.W.3) and Arogyaprabhu (P.w.6) were the first to come near the car (M.O.1). It may be worthwhile to extract Elango's (P.W.3's) evidence on what he saw:
http://www.judis.nic.in 48 “....We went and saw. There were one person clad in shirt and dhoti and another person clad in shirt and pant with cut injuries on the right side of the Scorpio car. A young boy with cut injuries was found on the left side of the car and near the canal. A person came from the left side of the Scorpio car. On seeing him crying, we asked him for the details, for which, he said that the deceased were his brother, driver and his brother's son. A whispering sound was heard near the left side of the Scorpio car. The person who came there took that child and was weeping. We came to know about the incident through him....” The aforesaid statements are res gestae evidence relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
28 It is Krishnan's (P.W.1's) case that on seeing the accused attacking, he took to his heels and came back from the hideout only after the attackers left. This can be called as the natural conduct of a man who is under siege by a gang with lethal weapons and who had just then witnessed the death of his brother and nephew, besides his brother's driver, by the fatal blows caused by the said gang. Therefore, albeit the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) and Nikila (P.W.9), the prosecution have satisfactorily proved through the evidence of Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6) and Selvaraj (P.W.7), who are all not interested witnesses, but chance witnesses, that contemporaneously, Krishnan (P.W.1) came to the place of occurrence and started wailing on seeing the dead bodies of his brother, Kathiresan (D1), his nephew Prasanna http://www.judis.nic.in 49 (D2), driver Boominathan (D3) and his brutally attacked niece, Nikila (P.W.9). Thus, through the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), Elango (P.W.3), Senthilvel (P.W.4), Arogyaprabhu (P.W.6), Selvaraj (P.W.7) and Nikila (P.W.9), the prosecution have established beyond doubt that Krishnan (P.W.1) accompanied the deceased in the car (M.O.1) and was available when the attack began. Evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1):
29 Much argument was advanced before this Court by the defence to persuade this Court to disbelieve the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that in the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Krishnan (P.W.1), he has totally named 28 persons, who had got down from the lorry and had come in three motor bikes and had mounted the attack with deadly weapons; however, after the CB-CID took over the investigation, they filed a closure report with regard to 15 persons named in the FIR and further, in the final report, they have indicted only A1 to A11 as the persons who had mounted the attack; that apart, Krishnan (P.W.1) has accepted the final report by saying that he has no objection in the deletion of the fifteen names vide Ex.D.10. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that in the complaint http://www.judis.nic.in 50 (Ex.P.1), Krishnan (P.W.1) has implicated Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) as the person who had attacked Kathiresan (D1) and had not named the persons who had attacked Prasanna (D2), Boominathan (D3) and Nikila (P.W.9), whereas, in the evidence before the Court, he has given the overt acts of each of the accused and therefore, his evidence is not worthy of credence.
30 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence further contended that the FIR in this case had reached the Magistrate very late. Krishnan (P.W.1) has stated that after the incident, he was in such a state of fear and shock that he was not even able to write the complaint; therefore, on his narration, his friend Nixon Anand (P.W.15) wrote the complaint (Ex.P.1) and gave it to the police. Nixon Anand (P.W.15), in his evidence, has stated that the news about the death of Kathiresan (D1) reached the village and he informed the same to Thangapandi, the local Councillor, who is an advocate as well and together, they went to the place of occurrence. Nixon Anand (P.W.15) has further stated that he went along with Krishnan (P.W.1), Thangapandian and Anbumani to the Taluk Police Station, where, he wrote the complaint since Krishnan (P.W.1) was in a state of shock. http://www.judis.nic.in 51 31 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants took this Court through the cross-examination of Nixon Anand (P.W.15) and the evidence of Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52), Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and pointed out certain discrepancies. They submitted that Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52) received information about the offence at 9.45 p.m. and he came to the place of occurrence and saw the three dead bodies, Krishnan (P.W.1), two Constables, viz., Elango (P.W.3) and Dharmendran (not examined) and when he asked Krishnan (P.W.1), he (P.W.1) told him (P.W.52) that Arjunan's (A1's) group had attacked the deceased and had even attempted to set them on fire; Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52) also saw the kerosene can near the bodies of the deceased; he informed his superior officers who also rushed to the place of occurrence; his superior officers instructed him to register the case on the complaint given by Krishnan (P.W.1); therefore, he went to the police station and thereafter, Krishnan (P.W.1) came to the police station at 11.30 p.m. and gave the complaint (Ex.P.1); but, in the cross-examination, Nixon Anand (P.W.15) has stated that when he went along with Krishnan (P.W.1) to the police station, the Sub Inspector was there and he asked them as to why they had come, for which, he stated that they had come for giving a complaint; they took a paper from the Sub Inspector and http://www.judis.nic.in 52 wrote the complaint and gave it to him. He has not stated the name of the Sub-Inspector who spoke to him.
32 In matters of appreciation of evidence, particularly in a case of this nature, it is necessary to restate the line of enquiry that must be pursued by this Court. The following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab1 is apposite:
“26. It is trite that even when exaggerations and embellishments are galore the courts can and indeed are expected to undertake a forensic exercise aimed at discovering the truth. The very fact that a large number of people were implicated in the incident in question who now stand acquitted by the High Court need not have deterred the High Court from appreciating the evidence on record and discarding what was not credible while accepting and relying upon what inspired confidence. That exercise was legitimate for otherwise the Court would be seen as abdicating and surrendering to distortions and/or embellishments whether made out of bitterness or any other reason including shoddy investigation by the agencies concerned. The ultimate quest for the court at all times remains “discovery of the truth” and unless the court is so disappointed with the difficulty besetting that exercise in a given case, as to make it impossible for it to pursue that object, it must make an endeavour in that direction. Inasmuch as the High Court made an attempt in that direction in the case at hand, it did not, in our opinion, commit any mistake. The question whether the conclusions drawn by the High Court as to the guilt of the appellants before us are reasonably supported by the evidence on record, is a different matter to which we must turn immediately.” 1 (2013) 16 SCC 752 http://www.judis.nic.in 53
33 In State of Haryana v. Tek Singh2, the Supreme Court emphasised that the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of the witness, read as a whole, inspired the confidence of the Court. The Supreme Court opined as under:
“6.. . . . . Further, the Court ought not to have taken into consideration the report of the investigating officer under Section 173 of the CrPC wherein it was stated that Baldev Singh, Megha Singh, Sajan Singh and Jaspal Singh were innocent while appreciating the evidence led before the Court. However, it has to be stated that after appreciating the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the High Court itself has confirmed the conviction of Baldev Singh (A-5) and Megha Singh (A-6) who were found innocent by the investigating officer. Their conviction is also confirmed at the time of granting leave to appeal. This reveals non- application of mind by the High Court to the facts of the case. Further, the Court while appreciating the evidence ought to have kept in mind and visualised the situation at the time of occurrence of the incident. The evidence of the witness should be appreciated by keeping the ground reality and the fact situation in mind. It is also established law that even with regard to the interested witness, it is the duty of the court to separate the truth from falsehood and the chaff from the grain. In view of the close relationship, witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but while appreciating the evidence exaggerated facts are to be ignored unless it affects the substratum of the prosecution story. In the case of State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 : AIR 1985 SC 48] this Court pointed out that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.
Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, a hypertechnical approach in perusal of the evidence should be avoided. The Court pertinently observed: (SCC pp. 514-15, para 10) 2 (1999) 4 SCC 682 http://www.judis.nic.in 54 “Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer.” 34 We do not find any discrepancy, much less any serious discrepancy, in the evidence of these two witnesses, viz., Nixon Anand (P.W.15) and Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52) except that Nixon Anand (P.W.15) has stated that the Sub Inspector responded as if he was not aware of the incident at all, whereas, Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52) had stated that he went to the place of occurrence and returned to the police station and on Krishnan (P.W.1) coming to the police station and giving the complaint, he registered the FIR. The fact remains that Krishnan (P.W.1) and Nixon Anand (P.W.15) have gone to the police station and have given a written complaint, based on which, Senthoor Pandian (P.W.52), has registered the FIR vide printed FIR (Ex.P.75) and the said FIR has reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 6.00 a.m. on 15.11.2012. In our opinion, there is absolutely no delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. Obviously, the Magistrate would not have been available in the Court at 6.00 a.m. and the FIR should have been taken to his house wherever he lives and he must have been woken up from sleep to make him receive it. It is trite that the FIR is not the encyclopaedia of the prosecution case. But, in certain http://www.judis.nic.in 55 cases, it does assume importance. We have already returned a finding, supra, about the presence of Krishnan (P.W.1) at the time of occurrence. It is true that in the complaint (Ex.P.1), Krishnan (P.W.1) has stated that Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) attacked his brother Kathiresan (D1) and has not stated anything about the overt acts of the other accused. It is also true that he has named 28 persons in the complaint as assailants and it is the case of the CB-CID that it was A1 to A11 who were actually present at the time of occurrence and A12 to A21 were either part of the conspiracy or they came into the picture subsequently, to provide logistics and asylum to the attackers. The Trial Court has acquitted A12 to A21, questioning the correctness of which, separate appeals, viz., Crl.A. (MD) Nos.230 and 242 of 2016 have been preferred by Krishnan (P.W.1/de facto complainant) and the State respectively, about which, we will discuss later. Thus, on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1) that he was shellshocked after having witnessed his brother and his nephew and niece being attacked indiscriminately and brutally, requires acceptance by this Court and given his state of mind in a scenario when he was trying his best to safeguard his own life, non-mentioning of the overt acts of the accused in the complaint, which was given, on his narration to Nixon Anand (P.W.15), soon after http://www.judis.nic.in 56 the accident, cannot be a reason to disbelieve his testimony in the Court, by which time, he would have been relieved himself of the shock, which he had, when the murderous attack took place.
35 Next, the defence have taken pains to confront Krishnan (P.W.1) with his complaint and his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Taluk Police Station. But, that, by itself, will not lead this Court to disbelieve his evidence totally. In Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab3, the Supreme Court has reiterated the inapplicability of the rule of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus and has observed as under:
“18. . . . . .Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non- acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence, prayer is to apply the principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co- accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove the guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a 3 (2003) 7 SCC 643 http://www.judis.nic.in 57 given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called “a mandatory rule of evidence”. (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366 : 1957 Cri LJ 550] ) Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460 :
1956 Cri LJ 827] .) The doctrine is a dangerous one, especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 256] .)”
36 Krishnan (P.W.1), in his evidence, has stated about the previous motive and coming to the incident on 14.11.2012, he has stated that he joined his brother to go to Sivagangai Town and while they were proceeding in the car (M.O.1), a lorry (M.O.2) came in the opposite side near Oothikulam area and tried to collide head on; the driver managed to avert the collision, despite which, the lorry (M.O.2) grazed through the body of the car (M.O.1); so, Boominathan (D3) stopped the car (M.O.1) in the left margin and Kathiresan (D1), who http://www.judis.nic.in 58 was seated in the front seat near Boominathan (D3), got down from the car (M.O.1); at that time, Kathiresan (D1) asked Boominathan (D3) to put on all the car lights, perhaps, with an intent to assess the damage which the car (M.O.1) had been subjected to; immediately thereafter, from the lorry (M.O.2), Vijayakumar (A7) jumped down from the driver's seat with a can and along with him, Sivakumar (A5), Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8), Jayakumar (A11), Kanakaraj (A14), Rajamani (A16) and Madanagopal (A18) also jumped with weapons and simultaneously, four motor bikes came there, in which, Arjunan (A1), Agniraj (A2), Sathyaraj (A3), Palpandi (A4), Yoganathan (A6), Karandhamalai (A9), Ganesan (A10), Muthukumar (A13) and Bose (A17) landed there; Arjunan (A1) exhorted his group to attack, in pursuance of which, Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) started breaking the glass panes of the car (M.O.1); Agniraj (A2) also broke the glass panes of the car (M.O.1) with an aruval and started attacking Kathiresan (D1) indiscriminately; he (P.W.1) opened the car door and ran for cover; he heard Sathyaraj (A3) saying that none in their family should be spared; he (P.W.1) ran and hid himself in a nearby bush and witnessed the occurrence. He has further stated that he saw Sathyaraj (A3) also attacking Prasanna (D2), Palpandi (A4) and Sivakumar (A5) attacking Boominathan (D3) and Yoganathan (A6) http://www.judis.nic.in 59 attacking Nikila (P.W.9). He has also stated that the other accused also joined the attack.
37 The evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1) has been generally corroborated by Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), who, in his evidence, has stated that he hails from Veeramangalam Village and knows both Krishnan (P.W.1) and the accused; he (P.W.2) and his friend Abdul Rahman (not examined) were proceeding to Sivagangai by motorbike from Veeramangalam and en route, around 9.30 p.m., while they were near Oothikulam, they saw Kathiresan's (D1's) car being grazed through by a lorry coming on the opposite side and thereafter, he saw Vijayakumar (A7) jumping from the driver's seat of the lorry with a can and proceeding towards the car; along with Vijayakumar (A7), he (P.W.2) also saw Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Jayakumar (A11) getting down from the lorry with weapons; at the same time, four motor bikes came, in which, Arjunan (A1), Agniraj (A2), Sathyaraj (A3), Yoganathan (A6), Karandhamalai (A9), Ganesan (A10), Palpandi (A4), Sivakumar (A5) and others came there; at that time, the lights, both inside and outside the car, were on; he (P.W.2) hid himself behind a tree and saw the incident; he saw Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Agniraj (A2) breaking the glass panes of the car; when http://www.judis.nic.in 60 Kathiresan (D1) alighted from the car, Agniraj (A2) and Sathyaraj (A3) attacked him with knives and Sivakumar (A5) attacked Boominathan (D3); he also saw Krishnan (P.W.1) running from out of the car. He has further stated that the gang pulled out Nikila (P.W.9) and Yoganathan (A6) attacked her on her head with a knife; Sathyaraj (A3) and Vijayakumar (A7) poured kerosene around the car and at that time, a Tata Magic van was coming from Sivagangai and Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Karandhamalai (A9) asked the driver of the van to keep moving; however, the van stopped a little away and from there, two policemen came; on seeing them, the group fled in their motor bikes and lorry (M.O.2). It is pertinent to point out that in the chief-examination itself, Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) has stated that after seeing the gory incident, he got scared and was worried about his own safety and so, he did not tell anyone and he went to Coimbatore; after the arrest of the principal accused, he came to the village on 24.12.2012 for Christmas and after hearing the sermon in the church, he decided to appear before the police and tell them everything.
38 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence vehemently attacked the evidence of Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) by contending that when he was so close to the family of Krishnan (P.W.1), his conduct in http://www.judis.nic.in 61 telling the police as to what he had seen, only on 26.12.2012, i.e., nearly after a month and a half from the date of the incident, appears improbable and unbelievable.
39 It is true that Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) knew the family of Krishnan (P.W.1) and in fact, the name of Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife Sathya has been printed in his (P.W.2's) marriage invitation card (Ex.D.1). The incident in this case had taken place on 14.11.2012 and Lourdu Prabhu's (P.W.2's) marriage was on 19.06.2013, which is subsequent to the date of incident. Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) is a member of the AIADMK and in the invitation card (Ex.D.1), the photo of the former Chief Minister J.Jayalalitha finds place and on the last page, the names of as many as 52 AIADMK functionaries of the district find place, of which, Krishnan's (P.W.1's) wife Sathya is one. He (P.W.
2) has stated that his father is an AIADMK functionary and that it is he who had printed the invitation card (Ex.D.1). If Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) had stated that he had not known Krishnan (P.W.1) at all, then, we can doubt his testimony. Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2), in his evidence, has also stated that he saw a Tata Magic van coming on the opposite side and Suresh @ Lenin Kumar (A8) and Karandhamalai (A9) asked the driver of that van not to stop; however, the driver stopped the van a http://www.judis.nic.in 62 little away and from the said van, two policemen in uniform walked towards the place of occurrence, on seeing whom, the accused fled. From the place of occurrence, petrol cans (M.O.4) and (M.O.7) have been recovered by the police, as stated in paragraph no.3.13 supra.
40 Further, Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) has given an explanation for the delay in appearing before the police. According to him, he feared retaliation by Arjunan's (A1's) gang and he gathered courage after hearing the Christmas mass, since, in the meantime, most of the accused were arrested and so, he appeared before the CB-CID on 26.12.2012 and gave the statement. If one were to place himself in the shoes of Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) and witness a gory attack of this nature, in which, even children were not spared, he may, at times, even lose his sanity and fall into depression. We cannot expect such a witness to act in a rational manner. The survival instinct in every human would implore him to keep away from troubled waters. At this juncture, we are reminded of the profound observation of the Supreme Court in Rana Partap vs. State of Haryana4 which reads as follows:
“6. Yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in not going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment is most unreal. Every person 4 (1983) 3 SCC 327 http://www.judis.nic.in 63 who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants.
Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.” Evidence of Nikila (P.W.9):
41 Nikila (P.W.9) was 10 years old when she was examined before the Trial Court on 08.07.2014. The Trial Judge has posed several preliminary questions to her in order to find out her capacity to give evidence. This child has been subjected to ruthless and teasing cross-examination by the defence. She has been asked whether she knows the meaning of AIADMK, DMK and Congress parties, for which, she has replied in the negative. She has stated that she knows only Jayalalitha party and that her father was a member of the said party.
The free translation of the relevant portion of her chief-examination reads as follows:
“My name is Nikhila. I am studying 5th Standard at Oxford School, Sivagangai. My father's name is M.G.Kathiresan. My mother's name is R.Prema. My elder brother's name is K.P.Prasanna. Our house is situate at Weekly Market Road, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Sivagangai. My grandfather Ganesan and grandmother Chellammal are residing at Pagainjan Village. One aunt, one elder uncle and 3 younger uncles were born with my father. My mother is working as a Teacher in T.Pudur School, Sivagangai. My father was in the political party of Jayalalitha. We had Scorpio Car. One http://www.judis.nic.in 64 Boominathan was the driver of the said car. On Children's Day in the month of November, my father, the driver, my elder brother Prasanna and I went to Pagainjan Village in our car about 5 p.m. As my mother had more work, she did not come with us. We used to go to Pagainjan Village to celebrate Deepavali. As we could not go at that time, we went there on the next day. We celebrated there bursting crackers and worshipped there and took our food. Thereafter, about 9 p.m., my father, Kittu uncle, driver, my elder brother and I came to Sivagangai in the same car. When we were coming, the vehicle got shaken and stopped. There was a yellow colour lorry on the right side. At that time, four persons hacked my father, who got down from the front seat of the car, with sickle. Kittu uncle, my elder brother and I were sitting in the centre seat. Thereafter, they damaged the glass window of the car. Then, they hacked the driver. They hacked my brother. They hacked me also. I do not know the names of the persons who hacked us. The witness identifies Chellam, Kanagaraj, Ganesh, Muthukumar and Palpandi, who are standing 2, 3, 5 and last on the row from the left side and 3rd from last. I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness, I was undergoing treatment at Meenakshi Hospital, Madurai. When I regained consciousness after I was hacked, Kittu uncle who accompanied us, was found missing. My grandfather, my mother and uncle were with me in the hospital. After the treatment, we came to the house. On the next day, after we came from the hospital to the house, police came to our house and asked for details. I have told them all the details. My father, driver and my elder brother have gone to see God.” 42 The contradictions in the Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of Nikila (P.W.9) were put to her, but, she has really not understood much about it. She was asked whether she wore new clothes for Deepavali, for which, she has stated that she did not. She was asked whether she had non-vegetarian food and she has stated in the affirmative. She has further stated that after they started from her grandpa's house, she fell asleep.
http://www.judis.nic.in 65 43 Much argument was advanced at the Bar on the aforesaid answer given by Nikila (P.W.9) by contending that when Nikila (P.W.9) had fallen asleep, she could not have witnessed the occurrence at all. One must approach the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9) without abandoning common sense. It is true that even as per her own evidence, Nikila (P.W.9) had fallen asleep after getting into the car (M.O.1). But, in the impact of the lorry (M.O.2) grazing through the car (M.O.1), save and except Kumbakarna anybody would have woken up from slumber and it is pertinent to point out that the lorry (M.O.2) had grazed through the car (M.O.1) on its (M.O.1's) right side, where, Nikila (P.W.9) was seated. Even assuming for a moment that Nikila (P.W.9) did not wake up even after the car (M.O.1) being grazed through by the lorry (M.O.
1), to think that she would have been dozing off even when the car (M.O.1) was being physically attacked, one has to be a moron in intelligence. In fact, she has clearly stated “When we were coming, the vehicle got shaken and stopped”. Had her evidence been recorded as is done in POCSO Act cases, with the help of experts from the Child Welfare Committee, more information about the accused would have come. The child had innocently pointed out at Palpandi (A4), Ganesan (A10), Muthukumar (A13), Kanakaraj (A14) and Selvam (A15) as the persons who attacked her. Had she been tutored, she would have http://www.judis.nic.in 66 implicated all the accused as the persons whom she found at the place of occurrence. The child has been made to go near the 21 accused standing in the dock without even a screen being placed between her and the accused as is done in the POCSO Act cases and was asked to identify the accused. Therefore, we have no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9) qua Palpandi (A4), Ganesan (A10) and Muthukumar (A13). In the ultimate analysis, having anxiously perused the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9), we find her testimony to be natural and commends our acceptance.
44 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that there is no proper evidence to show as to who had called the 108 ambulance and who had carried Nikila (P.W.9) to the hospital. He also contended that during investigation, the police have recorded the statement of Palpandi S/o Karuppiah Thevar in order to prove the fact that he had called the 108 ambulance, but, the said Palpandi was not examined. It is pertinent to point out that a very strange procedure has been adopted before the Trial Court by marking the Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of Palpandi as Ex.D.6 through Shankar (P.W.55), the first Investigating Officer. Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and marked as an http://www.judis.nic.in 67 exhibit [See Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration)]5. The fact remains that immediately after the incident, police reinforcements were rushed to the place, ambulance was pressed into service and Nikila (P.W.9) was rushed to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, where, Dr. Gopi Saravanan (P.W.33) examined her at 10.50 p.m. on 14.11.2012, as could be seen from his evidence as well the Accident Register copy (Ex.P.36). She was conscious, but, drowsy. Even to the doctor, she has stated that she was assaulted by five persons near Oothikulam Bus Stop. Thankfully, the defence had not ventured to make an outrageous suggestion to the child that she had inflicted the injuries on herself and got admitted to the hospital! Therefore, we find no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of Nikila (P.W.9).
45 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that the I.O. had arrived at the opinion that it was Yoganathan (A6) who had attacked Nikila (P.W.9), whereas, she has not identified Yoganathan (A6) at all. When an unlawful assembly of more than five persons armed with deadly weapons indiscriminately attack four persons and cause death to three of them, it may not be necessary for the eyewitness to specifically speak about the overt act of each of the 5 1980 SCC (Cri.) 458 http://www.judis.nic.in 68 accused, because, law is basically predicated on common sense and it never expects the impossible. Only to meet such contingencies, Section 149 I.P.C.has been so crafted that vicarious liability is fixed on every member of an unlawful assembly for the offence committed by any one of them in furtherance of the common object. To say that in a case of this nature, some of the members of the unlawful assembly did not anticipate that one or two among them would commit murder, sounds incredulous.
46 To apply Section 149 I.P.C., there must first, be an unlawful assembly i.e., an assembly of 5 or more persons pursuing a common object of committing an offence (Section 141 IPC), secondly, the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and thirdly, such an offence must have been committed in the prosecution of the common object. To illustrate, “A” and “B”, who are friends, were walking along a deserted road. A gang of ten known persons armed with lathis and knives, with whom “A” and “B” share enmity, come towards them. “A”, sensing imminent danger, flees the spot. “B”, however, runs out of luck and is cornered by the gang and hacked to death. The requirements of the law would be met if “A” names the persons who constituted the unlawful assembly and states http://www.judis.nic.in 69 that he had fled the scene only to return and find his friend “B” hacked to death. A neat exposition of the principles governing the application of Section 149 IPC is set out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Masalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh6, where, the Court held as under:
“15. Then it is urged that the evidence given by the witnesses conforms to the same uniform pattern and since no specific part is assigned to all the assailants, that evidence should not have been accepted. This criticism again is not well-founded. Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected. Appreciation of evidence in such complex case is no doubt a difficult task; but criminal courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not. . . ”
47 In the case at hand, the evidence of the injured witness need not necessarily be in line with the opinion arrived at by the Investigating Officer in the final report. It is fairly well settled that the results of the investigation are not legal evidence and in regard thereto, useful reference could be made to the judgment of the 6 AIR 1965 SC 202 http://www.judis.nic.in 70 Supreme Court in Vijender vs. State of Delhi7. Though Nikila (P.W.
9) had implicated Palpandi (A4), Ganesan (A10), Muthukumar (A13), Kanakaraj (A14) and Selvam (A15), the Trial Judge did not convict Muthukumar (A13), Kanakaraj (A14) and Selvam (A15), because, it is not the prosecution case that they were part of the unlawful assembly that attacked. Whereas, overwhelming evidence shows that Palpandi (A4), Yoganathan (A6) and Ganesan (A10) were part of the unlawful assembly that had carried out the murderous attack and charges against them were framed under Section 147 and 148 IPC. Therefore, A1 to A11 who were the members of the unlawful assembly and who have been identified by the witnesses, cannot escape the liability for the attack on Nikila (P.W.9), just because the Investigating Officer had arrived at an opinion that it was Yoganathan (A6) who had attacked Nikila (P.W.9).
48 The defence took the stand that the death of the trio was on account of a motor accident and not homicidal. This argument deserves to be stated only to be rejected because had the death occurred in a motor accident, the three bodies would have been inside the car (M.O.1) and not lying outside the car (M.O.1), that too, with 7 (1997) 6 SCC 171 http://www.judis.nic.in 71 cut injuries. Further, the testimony of Krishnan (P.W.1) and Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) stands amply corroborated by scientific evidence also. Even in the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5), which is relevant under Section 7 of the Evidence Act, the police have observed the paint marks on the right side of the car (M.O.1). We need not remind ourselves of the Locard's principle of exchange “When two objects come into contact with each other, there is an exchange of material between the two at the boundary of attack”. The paint flakes from the car (M.O.1) and the lorry (M.O.2) were taken by Janakiram (P.W.44) and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison through the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai. The report of Hemalatha (P.W.49), Scientific Officer, has been referred to at paragraph no.3.27 supra. The defence have not been able to make any serious dent in the evidence of Janakiram (P.W.44) and Hemalatha (P.W.49).
49 As regards the ownership of the lorry (M.O.2), the defence contended that the lorry (M.O.2) does not stand in the name of Vijayakumar (A7) and the chassis number and the registration number of the lorry (M.O.2) differs. It is true that the lorry (M.O.2) does not stand in the name of Vijayakumar (A7), but, stands in the name of one http://www.judis.nic.in 72 Jakulin Mary, who seems to have sold that lorry to various persons. One cannot expect an accused to be a simpleton to use a vehicle with pucca records for the commission of an offence. The fact that the chassis number and the registration number of the lorry (M.O.2) are varying vis-a-vis the R.C. Book is itself a powerful circumstance to show that the lorry (M.O.2)has been procured for a criminal activity. The lorry (M.O.2) was discovered only after the arrest of Vijayakumar (A7) on his showing at a place near C.K.S. Engineering Workshop and thereafter, the services of Janakiram (P.W.44), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory was requisitioned to take the paint flakes from the lorry (M.O.2) for chemical examination. The lorry (M.O.2) was also examined by Kavitha (P.W.50), Motor Vehicles Inspector and her notings have been referred to in paragraph no.3.29 (supra). Yet, at the cost of repetition, the same is extracted hereunder:
“Front RHS Pumper Pressing inside and scratches Front RHS Tyre mudguard damage”
50 Lastly, Vijayan (P.W.35) had lifted six finger prints from the car (M.O.1) and after the arrest of the accused, their finger prints were taken by Jerry Louis (P.W. 59), the comparison of which, was done by Vijayan (P.W.35), who has stated that out of six finger prints http://www.judis.nic.in 73 taken by him, two tally with that of Agniraj (A2) and Sathyaraj (A3). This clinches the presence of Agniraj (A2) and Sathyaraj (A3) at the scene of occurrence.
51 To sum up, in this case, an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, has mounted an attack resulting in the death of three persons including a 12 year old boy and grievous injuries to Nikila (P.W.9). When such an attack is mounted, there are bound to be discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses with regard to the overt acts of the actual attackers. Therefore, this Court has to bear in mind the totality of the circumstances while appreciating the evidence of eyewitnesses and look out for general corroboration through other sources. Viewed from that angle, it is worth pointing out that, in this case, the lorry (M.O.2) was used to first bring the car (M.O.1) to a halt. After the car (M.O.1) halted, the accused who jumped from the lorry (M.O.2), joined hands with the accused who came by motor bikes and mounted the attack on the inmates of the car (M.O.1). Krishnan (P.W.1) and Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) had seen the accused armed with dangerous weapons and attacking the car (M.O.1) and the inmates. Krishnan (P.W.1) escaped the attack by a whisker. http://www.judis.nic.in 74 52 The evidence of the doctor who conducted postmortem, the evidence of the doctors who treated Nikila (P.W.9), the presence of kerosene cans at the scene of occurrence, the paint flakes from the car (M.O.1) and the lorry (M.O.2), the opinion of the experts, finger prints lifted from the car (M.O.1) and arrest of the accused and recovery of dangerous weapons at the instance of the accused as stated in paragraph no.3.24 above, all cumulatively corroborate the evidence of Krishnan (P.W.1), Lourdu Prabhu (P.W.2) and Nikila (P.W.9). That apart, the nature of injuries sustained by Nikila (P.W.9) would go to show that the accused wanted to eliminate her also and therefore, the charge under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC qua the attack on Nikila (P.W.9) also stands established.
53 In view of the foregoing discussions, Crl. A. (MD) Nos.290 to 292 of 2015 preferred by A1 to A11 challenging their conviction and sentence stand dismissed.
54 Coming to Crl.A. (MD) Nos. 230 of 2016 and 242 of 2016 preferred by Krishnan (P.W.1/de facto complainant) and the State respectively, assailing the acquittal of A12 to A21, this Court is required to bear in mind the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in http://www.judis.nic.in 75 various decisions, which have been referred to in V. Sejappa vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga8, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
"23. In Muralidhar alias Gidda and Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 730, this Court noted the principles which are required to be followed by the appellate court in case of appeal against order of acquittal and in paragraph (12) held as under:-
"12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu AIR 1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh AIR 1954 SC 637, Atley AIR 1955 SC 807, Aher Raja Khima AIR 1956 SC 217, Balbir Singh AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agarwal AIR 1963 SC 200, Noor Khan AIR 1964 SC 286, Khedu Mohton (1970) 2 SCC 450, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade (1973) 2 SCC 793, Lekha Yadav (1973) 2 SCC 424, Khem Karan (1974) 4 SCC 603, Bishan Singh (1974) 3 SCC 288, Umedbhai Jadavbhai (1978) 1 SCC 228, K. Gopal Reddy (1979) 1 SCC 355, Tota Singh (1987) 2 SCC 529, Ram Kumar (1995) Supp 1 SCC 248, Madan Lal (1997) 7 SCC 677, Sambasivan (1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh (2002) 4 SCC 85, Harijana Thirupala (2002) 6 SCC 470, C. Antony (2003) 1 SCC 1, K. Gopalakrishna (2005) 9 SCC 291, Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa (2007) 4 SCC 415. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:
(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;
(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;
8 (2016) 12 SCC 150 http://www.judis.nic.in 76
(iii) Though, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and
(iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court."
55 The Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of Arogiasamy (P.W.8), Pandi (P.W.17) and Muthukumar (P.W.18) who are said to have heard the accused conspiring to eliminate the deceased. We plodded through the evidence of Arogiasamy (P.W.8), Pandi (P.W.17) and Muthukumar (P.W.18) and found the same to be unbelievable. Hence, the acquittal of A1 to A21 for the charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC cannot be disturbed. As regards the charge for screening the offenders after the attack, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Srinivasan (P.W.32), Manager of V.C.Lodge http://www.judis.nic.in 77 in Attur, who, in his evidence, has stated that Subramanian (A21) took a room on 18.11.2012 and along with him, two persons came and they were given Room No.217. He has further identified Vijayakumar (A7) and another person who was not in the Court, as those who had accompanied Subramanian (A21). However, the prosecution have not marked any document like guest register maintained by the lodge to corroborate the oral testimony of Srinivasan (P.W.32). In such perspective of the matter, we do not find any perversity in the Trial Court disbelieving the evidence of Srinivasan (P.W.32) qua the charge under Section 212 IPC framed against A12 to A21. The prosecution have not succeeded in establishing the requisite degree of perversity which is necessary to dislodge a judgment of acquittal.
56 Thus, in the ultimate analysis, Crl.A. (MD) Nos. 230 of 2016 and 242 of 2016 preferred by Krishnan (P.W.1/de facto complainant) and the State respectively, assailing the acquittal of A12 to A21, fail and are accordingly dismissed.
To sum up, the judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Sivagangai in S.C. No.72 of 2013 stands confirmed. Ex consequenti, all the five criminal appeals stand dismissed. The Trial http://www.judis.nic.in 78 Court is directed to secure the presence of those accused who are on bail and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
[P.N.P.J.] & [B.P.J.] 21 .03.2019 cad Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order http://www.judis.nic.in 79 To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police CB-CID Madurai
2. The Sessions Judge Sivagangai
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai
5. The Record Keeper Vernacular Records Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai http://www.judis.nic.in 80 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and B.PUGALENDHI, J.
cad CRL.A. [MD] Nos.290 to 292 of 2015 and 230 & 242 of 2016 21.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in