Madras High Court
V.Dharmalingam vs / on 17 November, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :09.11.2022
Pronounced on :17.11.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
V.Dharmalingam .. Petitioner
/versus/
State by the Inspector of Police,
Modakurichi Police Station,
Crime No.380 of 2004
Erode District. .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and
401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the conviction imposed in
the judgment dated 20.11.2017 made in C.A.No.27 of 2014 on the file of
the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode District at Bhavani
confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 04.03.2014 made
in S.C.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Bhavani
and set aside the same by allowing the criminal revision petition.
Page No.1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
For Petitioner :M/s Vasavi Sridevi for
Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For Respondent :Mr.N.Manoharan Assist to
Prosecution
Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
------
ORDER
Smt.Prema, wife of Dharmalingam committed suicide by hanging on 20/11/2004. Her marriage was not with consent of her family members. She loved Dharmalingam the neighbouring land owner, who had boundary dispute with Prema’s family. However, being attracted, she eloped with him. After 3 days, when she came back home, her family members tried to separate them. Their attempt failed, then they insisted, she must execute release deed from the family property, which roughly estimated worth Rs.2,50,000/-. The deceased Prema obliged and thereafter, her marriage with Dharmalingam on 30/10/1998 was registered at the Sub Registrar Office. On the day, she executed deed releasing her 1/6th share in the family Page No.2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 property. Since then her contact with her family members, except with her maternal grand parents was severed. After few years of her marriage, she got separated from the joint family of her husband and set up a nucleus family consisting of her husband and her girl child. They were living in the house constructed in the land of her husband at Elamatur Village, Sellappagoundenvalasu. In the said house, she was found dead by hanging on the night of 20/11/2004.
2. On hearing the death of Prema, her brother Sakthivel, an Advocate by profession gave a complaint to the respondent police alleging that Dharmalingam and his parents along with his cousin Thangavel demanded dowry of Rs.2,50,000/- during the marriage which he gave. Not satisfied, they demanded additional 2 ½ lakhs rupees and started harassing his sister Prema. They all teased her and abused demeaning her. Whenever she met her parents, she used to complaint about her husband for harassing her demanding dowry. Her father each time used to give Rs.10,000/- or Rs.20,000/- and send her back to the matrimonial home. His uncle Page No.3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 Chandrasekar and Saravanan went to the house of Dharmalingam and tried to pacify the couple. A week before her death, Prema came to her mother and cried saying her husband (Dharmalingam) along with his parents treating her cruelty. They demand money and Thangavel call her as person of no means (tf;fw;wts;). On 20/11/2014 morning when he was in the field, Prema came and told him that she is subjected to torture and cried. He assured her that he will try to sort out the dispute through their uncle or through police complaint. That night he heard from his uncle that Prema died. Suspecting foul in her death, the complaint lodged for probing.
3. This complaint dated 21/11/2004 lodged at 2.00 p.m., was taken up for investigation in Crime No.380/2004 against 4 accused. On completion of the investigation, Final Report filed against the husband Dharmalingam alone alleging that at the time of marriage the accused demanded Rs.2.5 lakhs dowry and after receiving the money a release deed was obtained from her by her parents. The accused, after marriage caused cruelty continuously demanding dowry. The accused suspected the fidelity Page No.4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 of his wife Prema. He had no sufficient means to live. So the deceased Prema took up employment in a Photocopy shop by name Sakthi Xerox Shop. He stopped her going for the job suspecting her fidelity. Soon before her death, the accused hit her with iron rod and caused injury to her left little finger. This cruelty forced Prema to commit suicide by hanging on 20/11/2004 between 08.30 p.m to 09.00 p.m. A week before her death, she wrote a letter to her maternal grand father and maternal uncle Chandrasekar about her plight complaining that she is confined by her husband and seeking their intervention and assistance. This letter was produced to the Investigating Officer after 5 days of the incident (i.e) on 25/11/2004. The admitted signature and hand writing of the deceased was collected from the school in which her daughter was studying. The writing and signature found in the post card was sent for handwriting opinion to compare with the admitted writings. After obtaining the expert opinion, Final Report filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
Page No.5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
4. On committal, the Assistant Sessions Court at Bhavani, Erode District framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and tried. To prove the charges prosecution examined 19 witnesses. 23 documents and 12 Material Objects were marked. In defence, 6 documents were marked.
5. The trial Court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years RI for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC.
6. The accused preferred appeal before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavani. The said appeal was dismissed on 20/11/2017 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the concurrent finding of the Courts below.
Page No.6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
7. Grounds for revision:
Ex.P1 complaint of dowry demand carries inherent contradictions and falsity which has been established from the DRO enquiry and statements given by the witnesses.
8. The prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 admits in their evidence that they were not in good terms with the accused even before the marriage of accused with the deceased. They had property dispute with him and they were forced to spend money for that dispute. Before registering their marriage, they got the release deed of the 1/6th share of the deceased in the family property worth Rs.2,50,000/-. Suppressing this vital fact, PW-1 had given complaint as if the said money was given as dowry. PW-1 to PW- 4 are relatives of the deceased and have motive to implicate the accused. Admittedly, they were not in talking terms with the accused and his deceased wife Prema, after the marriage. While so, reading the post card marked as Ex.P-3 in piece meal, the Courts below erred in holding that the Page No.7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 deceased Prema was subjected to cruelty and the accused abetted her to commit suicide.
9. The evidence of PW-1 as well as his mother PW-2, who admits that when the deceased came to her marital home to seek her ailing father, she was not allowed into the house and the fact they want to disown her for marrying the accused is made clear from the recital of the release deed marked as Ex.D-1. In the cross examination of PW-1, he admits that he is not interested in taking care of the daughter of his deceased sister, aged 6 years at the time of examining him. The malafide intention of PW-1 to harass the accused so as to keep him away from claiming any share in the family property of her deceased wife through his daughter exposed from the cross examination of PW-1 to PW-3. However the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly.
10. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that, Ex.P-3 even presumed to have been proved as a letter Page No.8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 written by the deceased, the prosecution has not proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry to attract offences under section 498-A IPC or 304-B IPC. More so, when the District Revenue Officer, who enquired the death of Prema, who died within 7 years of marriage, had categorically said that the death was not due to dowry demand or harassment, but due to the mental cruelty of suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, who took up job in a Xerrox shop at Erode, against the advice of the accused.
11. The Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant, who with the leave of the Court intervene the revision petition. Reading the content of Ex.P-3 and the testimony of PW-1 to PW-4, he submitted that, at the time of marriage the accused was given Rs.2,50,000/-. The maternal grand father used to financially support the family giving money to the deceased since she was not taken care by the accused properly. Ex.P-3 the letter written to her grand father 10 days prior to her death speak volume. From the Page No.9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 testimony of PW-1, the prosecution has proved that the deceased met him early morning the day, on which she committed suicide and told about her suffering at the hands of the accused. PW-2 the mother of the deceased had deposed that on more than one occasion the deceased met her and told her that she is subjected to cruelty and she used to give Rs 500/- or 1000/- to her. Specifically, PW-2 had deposed that 6 months after giving birth to the child, the deceased visited the neighbouring house. When she met the deceased there, she told that her husband (accused) demanding Rs.2,50,000/- lakhs and she gave Rs.10,000/-. Then two years later when the deceased came to the accused field, she met her and when she told that her husband is beating her demanding money, she borrowed Rs 7000/- from the cattle grazers and gave Rs.7,000/- to her. The inquest report conducted by the District Revenue Officer and the file marked as Ex.P-20 clearly prove that PW-16 (DRO) noticed injury on the left little finger of the deceased, contusion marks on the neck and back of the deceased. The deceased fidelity was suspected by the accused and she was subjected to cruelty by the accused. Thus, the required ingredients for offences under Section Page No.10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 498-A and 304-B IPC are proved. Therefore, the Learned counsel intervened for the defacto complainant and submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is proper and suffers no infirmity or irregularity to interfere.
12. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State submitted that the letter (Ex.P-3) is singularly sufficient to prove cruelty. The death has occurred due to sustained cruelty, which has been expressed by the deceased in her letter addressed to her grand father, who was sympathetic to her during the hard days, after her family disowned her for marrying the accused against their wish. The accused has not rebutted the presumption against him. Neither Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6 nor his answer to the incriminating evidence put to him under Section 313 (1) Cr.P.C. probablise his defence to shift the onus.
13. Considered the rival submissions. Records perused. Page No.11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
14. The prosecution case is that on the demand of the accused at the time of registering the marriage, the accused was given Rs.2,50,000/- as dowry. Ex.P-1 the complaint given by the brother of the deceased PW-1 says that the dowry of Rs.5 lakhs demanded by the accused and his parents at the time of marriage. Before the Court, PW-1 admits that he did not see giving Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused. PW-4, one of the uncles' of the deceased had deposed that he came to know about the demand of dowry from the panchayatars. He does not have any direct personal knowledge about the dowry demand at the time of marriage. PW-4 is the person, who gave Rs.2,50,000/- to Prema on 30/10/1998, the day on which Prema executed the release deed of her 1/6th share in the family property. He is one of the witnesses to the registration of the marriage of Prema with the accused. He had further deposed that, after 2 or 3 years of the marriage, he met the deceased at Surampatti Bus stop and she told him that her husband is torturing her suspecting her fidelity. She also said that her parents and grand parents are financially supporting her. The previous statement of this Page No.12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 witness to the District Revenue Officer during the inquest been marked as Ex.D-5. The improvements in the testimony before the Court, such as:
(a)the deceased on receiving Rs.2,50,000/- lakhs from him, gave it to the accused, (b)when he met the deceased at Surampatti bus stop she told him that the accused suspect her fidelity and torturing her been confronted to the witness during cross examination and suggested he is an interested witness speaking falsehood and not a reliable.
15. PW-5 [Devaraj], went to the house of accused on hearing the news that the accused and the deceased eloped. He tried to persuade her to obey the wish of her father and come back. He had deposed that since the deceased was adamant to marry the accused and refused to go along with her parents, he brought the accused and the deceased to his house and negotiated with the family members of the deceased. Then, PW-1 (the brother of the deceased-the defacto complainant), said if she (deceased) wants to marry the accused let her go for registered marriage and they will not conduct her marriage. After negotiation PW-1 agreed to give Page No.13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 Rs.2,50,000/- to set up the family and for their livelihood. The next day Saravanan (PW-4) came to his house with Rs.2,50,000/- . He received it and gave it to the accused. This part of PW-5 evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW-4. Further, this was not stated by PW-5 in his previous statement to the District Revenue Officer, which is marked as Ex.D-6. The improvement in the testimony as contradictions elicited in the cross examination of this witness. It is to be noted that, though this witness (PW-5) was the key person along with PW-4 involved in the negotiation between the two family and arranged for the registered marriage of the deceased and the accused after getting the release deed from the deceased, conspicuously in his chief examination has omitted to whisper about the release deed executed by the deceased on the date of the registration of marriage. In the previous statement to the DRO which is marked as Ex.D-6, this witness has stated that while negotiating, when he told the deceased that PW-1 demands a release deed from her relinquishing her share in the family property, Prema said she is not having enough money and possess only 5 sovereigns of jewel. So, if PW-1 gives Rs.5,00,000/-, she will execute the Page No.14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 release deed as demanded by PW-1.
16. In the light of the contradictions elicited during the cross examination of PW-4 and PW-5, the evidence of PW-1 who admits that he did into see handing over of Rs.2,50,000/- and admits that when her sister came to see him when he met with an accident, he refused to see her. She was not allowed see her ailing father when she came with her child coupled with the evidence of PW-2 the mother of the deceased who has deposed that she gave Rs.10,000/- when her daughter came to the neighbouring house with her 6 months old child and borrowed Rs.7000/- from the cattle grazers and gave to her daughter when she met her daughter in the neighbour field only goes to prove that, the money said to have given to the deceased was the quid pro quo for she relinquishing her 1/6th right in the family property and small amount after giving birth to the child or on other occasions when PW-2 happened to met her daughter.
Page No.15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
17. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses also reveals that during the relevant point of time due to failure of monsoon, there was no sufficient income for the accused. In that circumstances, the deceased has taken up a job in a Xerox shop. Two months prior to her death, the accused told her not to go for job and this has caused mental disturbance to the deceased. The prosecution version is that the deceased was not allowed to take up the job because she was beautiful than the accused and the accused suspected her fidelity and kept her in confinement. Contrarily, the accused in his statement given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has stated that, before his land had the irrigation facility from Bhavani channel, the deceased went for a job and earning for the family. After getting water facility from Bhavani Channel, he advised his wife to leave the job and work in their own field, which will fetch more income. His wife was angry with him about this. Except this, there was no misunderstanding with her. He never demanded dowry from her family or received any dowry. He was taking care of his family well by giving good education to his daughter in a private school paying fees and there is no evidence to show the deceased was Page No.16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 subjected to cruelty in any form. He also suspect the letter Ex.P-3 which was later introduced by the prosecution belatedly, is doubtful. Obviously it is written in two different pen and its recovery not been proved beyond doubt.
18. Thus, the entire case boils down to the content of Ex.P-3, this post card was produced by S.A.Chandrsekar (PW-3) during the District Revenue Officer enquiry conducted on 21/11/2004. This letter is a post card without date but the postal seal indicates it was posted on 08/10/2004 and delivered to at Modakuruchi post office on 09/10/2004. The post card is addressed to Mr. S.Arumuga Gounder, Chavadipalayam. Above his name the name of S.A. Chandrasekar is written. The slip (Ex.P-6) alleged to have been written by the deceased to the school authorities was produced by the School head mistress and the writings found in the school dairy of the child were taken as standard writing of the deceased for the comparison with the disputed writing in the post card (Ex.P-3). The hand writing experts have opined that both the writings are by one and the same person. The opinion Page No.17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 of the expert is marked as Ex.P-15 through PW-12, the Head Clerk attached to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Modakurichi, who received the Scientific Expert opinion through post. Thus, the Courts below considering the evidence of the Investigating Officer and PW- 3 and Ex.P-15, held Ex.P- 3 been written by the deceased 10 days, prior to her death and from the letter her cause of death presumed to be due to the mental cruelty in connection with demand for dowry.
19. The said letter is written in two different ink and the same is obvious to the naked eyes. The same also admitted by the witnesses.
20. The first portion of the letter in one ink reads as below:-
“vd;idg;gw;wpmd;g[s;s jhj;jh mk;khap khkh midtUf;Fk; gpnukhtpd; filrp fojk;/ ,e;j mdhijf;F Mapuk; MWjy; thh;j;ijfs; Twp vd;id thHitf;f vij ntz;LkhdhYk; bra;J ju epidf;Fk; vd; khkht[f;F vd; ed;wpfs; vd;dhy; ahUf;Fk; ,dpnkyhtJ ve;j gpur;ira[k; ntz;lhk;/ Mjhpg;gh; ahUk; ,y;iy/ Mjhpf;f tHpa[k; ,y;iy vd;gJ nghy; mdhijahfnt rhfpnwd;/ vdJ 26 tajpnyna Page No.18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 mtd; TWk; bgha; gHpia Vw;Wf; bfhz;L ,Ue;njd; vd;why; vjph;fhyj;ij vd;dhy; vjph;bfhs;sKoahky; ngha;tpLk; khkh nf!; bfhLj;J mtid moj;J jpUj;j Koa[k; vd;W eP';fs; vz;ZfpwPh;fs;/ ,bjy;yhk; njitapy;iy khkh mtd; jiyapy; bra;Js;s Mg;nucrd; fhuzkhf xU mo moj;jhny mtd;
Koj;jhd;/ ,g;nghnj xhpUkiw “fhfhtypgg; “[ nghy; te;J bfhz;oUf;fpwJ/ me;j epiyapYk; vd;id fc;lg;gLj;jpf;
bfhz;Ljhd; ,Uf;fpwhd;/ vd;id kpul;o tw;g[Wj;jp bfhz;Lngha; itj;J thH;tjhy; mtd; kdjpy; mtid tpl;Ltpl;L ngha;tpLntd; vd;W mtd;fhyoapnyna itj;jpUf;f epidf;fpwhd;/ jhd; Mirg;Lk; Jzp bghl;L rhg;gplepidg;gJ vJthf ,Ue;jhYk; mJ vdf;F fpilf;fhJ/ 3 tUl';fshf mk;khap. jhjh ,Uthpd; Mjuthy; bfh“;rk; epk;kjpahf ,Ue;njd;/ 8 khj';fshf ehd; ntiyf;F brd;W te;jjhy; bfh“;rk; epk;kjpahft[k; thHKoa[k; vd;w ek;gpf;if te;jJ/ Mdhy; ,g;nghJ tPl;iltpl;L btspna tuKoahj epiyapy; cs;nsd;/ ,dpnky; CUf;F nghd; bra;anth yl;lh;nghlnth KoahJ/ ,e;j fojj;ijna vg;go c';fSf;F mDg;g Koa[k; vd;W bjhpatpy;iy/ vdf;F Xnu xU cjtp bra;a[';fs; khkh vdf;F jdpna thGk; mstpw;F xU ntiyf;F Vw;ghL bra;a[';fs; kiwKfkhfr; bra;a[';fs; j';fr;rpkfs; vd;W Tl ntz;lhk; nuhl;oy; nghFk; mdhij vd;W epidj;J xU ntiyf;F nghf cjtpg[hpa[';fs; gznkh bghUnsh vdf;F vJt[k; ntz;lhk; eP';fs; Twpdhy; mtdhy; kWf;fKoahJ/” Page No.19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
21. The later portion of the letter in different ink reads as below:-
“vd;idg;gw;wp VjhtJ bjhpantz;Lk; vd;why;
bjhl;oghisak; n$hjp [2333815]-f;F nghd; gz;zp nfS';fs; mtSf;F vd;idg;gw;wp vy;yhKk; bjhpa[k; c';fs; cjtpapy; ehd; vd; thH;f;if ,Uf;fpwJ khkh/ eP';fSk; iftpl;lhy; vdf;F ntWtHpapy;iy bjspthf vGj vd;dhy; Koatpyi ; y/”
22. PW-3, in his evidence has stated that Ex.P-3-post card was given to him by his father and he in turn handed it over to the District Revenue Officer during her enquiry. His father Arumuga Gounder, who was in possession of the post card and to whom it was addressed, was not examined. One Thottipalayam Jothi with phone number mentioned in Ex.P- 3 was not examined.
23. The full reading of this letter marked as Ex.P-3 does not give an enough presumption that there was dowry harassment. The expected difficulties for any run away couple is expressed in this letter. The desire to Page No.20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 secure a job and hope to live with financial independence is reflected in this letter. The recipient of this letter, Mr. Arumuga Gounder has though fit it is a matter to be ignored, Hence, not shown it to his son S.A.Chandrasekar ( PW-3). The death, which has occurred 12 days after posting this card, does not prove that there was cruelty in connection with demand for dowry, which is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 304 B of IPC.
24. The false, embellished and exaggerated evidence of PW-1, who had an axe to grind against the accused had given the complaint implicating all the family members of the accused. He has mercilessly got release deed from his sister, when she wanted to choose her life partner PW-9 permitted his sister to marry the accused only after getting the deed from the deceased releasing her right over 1/6th share in the family property. He had tried to project the money given for relinquishing the right as dowry given on demand. The other witnesses like his mother and uncle obliged to support his falsehood had embellished the facts. However, what is proved, is payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by PW-1 to the deceased as quid pro quo for Page No.21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 executing the release deed, Rs.10,000/- by PW-2 the mother of the deceased 6 months after the deceased gave birth to the child and Rs.7,000/- after few years of the marriage. Rs.6,000/- by the grand father of the deceased for constructing the house by the accused.
25. The gesture of the mother to her daughter on later giving birth to the child or small financial help rendered by relatives cannot be presumed to be given as dowry on demand. The Courts below miserable failed to appreciate the evidence and the law. The ingredients required for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC is primarily cruelty either mentally or physically which is not made out in this case. While the Post Mortem certificate indicates only a small abrasion in the left little finger without mentioning the size. The District Revenue Officer in her report adds that linear contusion seen all over the back of her body, which is not so as per the post mortem report. Further, the District Revenue Officer has unequivocally concluded that there was no evidence for demand of dowry. The allegation that the accused suspected the fidelity of the decease Page No.22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 is unfound and no evidence.
26. The evidence of the witnesses does not satisfy the ingredient required to prove cruelty or cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. In the absence of the core ingredients, superficial on reading Ex.P-3 and the doubtful testimony of PW-1 to PW-5, this Court holds that they are not sufficient to draw the presumption of guilty just because the wife of the accused died within 7 years of the marriage. The Courts below erred in not considering the evidence in whole to draw presumption against the accused.
27. When the statute warrants reverse burden, the Courts should be more careful in appreciating the evidence and see that the prosecution case is without any embellishment or suppression of vital facts. In this case, prosecution evidence bristles with falsehood and exaggeration intertwined with truth and could not be separated as pointed out, the Courts below erred in not considering the contradictions and intentional suppression of facts. Page No.23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017
28. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court viz., the Assistant Sessions Court, Bhavani in S.C.No.22 of 2007 dated 04.03.2014 and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court viz., the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode in C.A.No.27 of 2014, dated 20.11.2017 is set aside. Fine amount paid if any to be refunded to the accused. Bail bond executed by the accused, if any, stands cancelled. If his custody is not required in any other case, the accused/petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith.
17.11.2022 Index:yes speaking order/non speaking order ari To :
1.IVAdditional District and Sessions Court, Erode.
2.The Assistant Sessions Court, Bhavani.
3.The Inspector of Police, Modakurichi Police Station, Erode District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page No.24/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari Delivery Order made in Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2017 17.11.2022 Page No.25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis