Telangana High Court
Gogula Tirupathaiah, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 24 January, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.687 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri P. Vengal Reddy, learned counsel representing Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.07.2013 in S.C.No.599 of 2012 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar District (for short, 'the Trial Court'). The appellant herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid sessions case. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) The accused and the deceased (K.Upender Reddy) are residents of Murthuzapalli Village of Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The deceased was having illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused. In that regard, a panchayat was held ten (10) years ago before the village elders. They have admonished 2 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 the deceased and settled the matter, but the accused developed grudge on the pretext that the deceased was continuing illegal intimacy with his wife. He was looking for an opportunity to eliminate the accused.
ii) On 24.04.2012 at about 15-00 hours, the deceased proceeded to meet his friend i.e., PW.2. On his way near the house of PW.3, who was sitting in front of her house, the deceased went to attend the call of nature. At that time, the accused, taking advantage of the same, axed over the neck of the deceased from back side which caused bleeding injury. PW.2 rushed there and on seeing him, the accused fled away. PW.4 shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 09.05.2012 at around 19-30 hours.
Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
iii) To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 - wife of the deceased, PWs.2 and 3 - eyewitnesses, PW.4 - circumstantial witness, PW.5 - mother of the deceased, PWs.6 and 7 -panch witnesses for the scene of offence, PW.8 - panch witness for Inquest, PW.9 - panch witness for confession and seizure of MO.1, PWs.11 and 12 - Investigating Officers and 3 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 PW.13 - learned Magistrate who recorded Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration.
iv) PW.1 - wife of the deceased deposed that on 24.02.2012, her husband left the house at about 02:00 P.M., to meet PW.2. On knowing that that the accused hacked her husband on his neck near the house of PW.3, she went there and found her husband lying with injury. On enquiry, the deceased informed her that the accused hacked him with an axe on his neck. Thereafter, she went to Amangal Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 - complaint. After 15 days of shifting her husband to Gandhi Hospital, he died while undergoing treatment. She deposed that the accused killed her husband due to old disputes.
v) During cross examination, she has admitted that she did not know the particulars of the disputes between the deceased and the accused as they were pending prior to her marriage. Her injured husband was taken to the Police Station but not into the Police Station. She further admitted that there is another person by name "Tirupathaiah'' in their village.
vi) PW.2 is the eyewitness and according to the prosecution and PW.1, the deceased started from his house to meet PW.2. However, he turned hostile. In his chief examination, he stated that 4 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 about ten months back, at about 02:30 P.M., while he was proceeding to his agriculture fields, and when he reached the house of PW.3, he found the deceased lying with injuries in pool of blood. PW.1 came there shifted the deceased in a jeep. During cross examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW.2 admitted that he gave statement (Ex.P.2) to the police. During cross examination by the accused, he has admitted that the injured was conscious and that there were about of six to seven persons in their village with the same name of the accused.
vii) PW.3 is an eyewitness. She turned hostile. However, during her chief examination, she has admitted that about an year back, she came to know about the incident, and on the date of the incident, she went to another village to attend marriage.
viii) PW.4 is cousin of the deceased. According to him, about an year back, when he was in Amangal, at about 04:00 P.M., his villager informed him over phone that the deceased was lying with injuries. His villagers brought the injured to Amangal Hospital. He went and saw the deceased there. On enquiry, the deceased informed that the accused hacked him with an axe.
ix) PW.5 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that on 24.04.2012, she went to Irvin Village to attend a marriage and 5 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 she came to know through the villagers that her son was beaten by the accused with an axe which caused injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. On knowing the same, she went to the hospital and saw her son with injuries on his neck. He was conscious when she enquired with him. The deceased informed her that the accused attacked him with an axe. The accused and the deceased had some disputes in respect of a house property. During cross examination, she has admitted that the accused had threatened them to compromise.
x) PWs.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence. They turned hostile. However, they have admitted about conduct of Panchanama at the scene of offence which contains their signatures i.e., Ex.P.4 and P.5.
xi) PW.8 is the panch witness for Inquest. He has deposed that about an year back, when he went to Gandhi Hospital to see the dead body, the police called him and PW.13, as mediators and the police held inquest over the dead body. He found bleeding injury on the neck of the deceased. It was opined that the accused hacked the deceased. Ex.P-6 is the Inquest Report. During cross examination, he has admitted that the deceased is his brother-in- law and PW.13 is his relative.
6
KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013
xii) PW.9 is the panch witness for confession and seizure of MO.1. He turned hostile. However, he deposed that about an year back when he went to the Police Station on his personal work, the police obtained his signatures. He did not observe the accused in the Police Station. Nothing was recovered in his presence. Ex.P.7 - confession panchanama and Ex.P.8 - recovery panchanama contain his signatures.
xiii) PW.10 is another panch witness for confession and recovery of MO.1. He also turned hostile. He deposed that he used to visit the police station frequently and the police obtained his signatures on some written papers. Further, he has admitted his signature on Ex.P.9 - confession panchanama and Ex.P.10 - seizure panchanama.
xiv) PW.11 is the investigating officer who deposed about conduct of investigation right from receipt of the complaint. He specifically deposed that on receipt of complaint, he has registered Ex.P.11 - FIR initially for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. However, on coming to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries on 09.05.2012, PW.11 has altered the Section of Law from Section 307 IPC to that of Section 302 IPC under Ex.P15 - alteration memo. Further, he has recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 10. He 7 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 seized blood stains found on earth. On 29.04.2012, he visited Gandhi Hospital and examined the deceased and sent requisition to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to record Dying Declaration of the deceased. He has arrested the accused. He has seized MO.1 - Axe. He has recorded seizure and confession panchanama. Ex.P.13 is the confession statement of the accused.
xv) During cross examination, he has admitted that the deceased was not brought to the police station. PW.1 did not state to him that her husband was hacked near thorny bushes. PW.5 did not state to him that her deceased son was hacked by the accused. When he visited the hospital, deceased was lying on the bed and spoke in low voice. He has recorded the statement of the deceased. He did not obtain any certificate about the mental fitness of the deceased to give statement. When he recorded statement of the deceased, none of his relatives were present. He did not examine any panchayatdhars of panchayat with regard to illicit intimacy of the deceased with the wife of the accused. MO.1 did not contain any blood stains. There are some other persons in the village with the same name as of the accused.
xvi) PW.12 is another investigating officer and he has resumed investigation on 10.05.2011 from PW.11, verified it and 8 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 found it in correct lines. On completion of investigation and collecting the Post-mortem Examination Report and Dying Declaration of the deceased, he has laid charge sheet against the accused. During cross examination, he has admitted that no witnesses came forward to speak about illicit intimacy between the deceased and the wife of the accused. There may be several persons living in the village with the same name as of the accused.
xvii) PW.13 is the learned Magistrate who recorded Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration. He has specifically deposed that on 29.04.2012 at 06:40 P.M., he received requisition from Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, to record the statement of the injured i.e., K. Upender Reddy. On the same day, at 07:00 P.M., he visited the Hospital, found the injured undergoing treatment. The duty doctor was also present by that time. He put simple questions to the injured and the injured replied with proper answers to his questions. Therefore, he was satisfied to record the statement of the injured. The duty doctor also endorsed to the extent that the injured was in conscious, coherent and fit state of mind to give his declaration. He asked the injured with regard to the reasons for sustaining injuries. The injured stated before him that on 24th day Tuesday, between 02:30 P.M. or 03:00 P.M., the incident had happened in the middle of the village. Vadde Tirupathi (accused) suddenly came behind the 9 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 injured, hacked on his left side of the neck with MO.1 - Axe. He does not know the reason as to why he was hacked by the accused.
xviii) PW.13 further deposed that the deceased further stated before him that because of the hacking, he fell down. He did not know what was the intention of the accused to hack him. The injured has no enmity with the accused. The accused was attending some politics in the village and the injured was doing cultivation. At the time of incident, P.W.3 - Golla Mucharla Rajitha was present. Bavikadi Sreenu and Jagan washed the blood stains and took the injured to the Hospital.
xix) PW.13 read out the statement to the injured. He has admitted the same to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge. The duty doctor also certified the state of mind of the injured to the effect that the injured was conscious and coherent till completion of the Dying Declaration. PW.13 has followed the procedure laid down under Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice while recording the statement of the deceased. The Dying Declaration was concluded at 07:16 P.M., on that day. PW.13, his attender, the duty doctor and the injured were present and none were present while recording the statement of the deceased. 10
KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 xx) During cross examination, he has admitted that the deceased stated in Ex.P.19 that Vadde Tirupathi hacked him. The father's name of Tirupathi was not mentioned in Ex.P.19. He obtained left leg toe impression. The injured did not sustain any injuries to both of his hands, but he was not in a position to move or lift anything. Therefore, he obtained left leg toe impression on Ex.P.19. The duty doctor did not mention the name of the injured while certifying his state of mind.
4. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned judgment dated 18.07.2013, learned trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal.
5. Sri P. Vengal Reddy, learned counsel representing Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend as follows:
a. The prosecution failed to prove the motive of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent evidence. b. It is not a pre-meditated murder. It has occurred on the spur of the moment. Medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.11
KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 c. The prosecution failed to examine the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.17 - Post Mortem Examination Report. d. PW.1 - wife of the deceased did not mention that the accused hacked her husband on the neck. There is no mention in Ex.P.1 that her husband informed her that the accused hacked him on the neck with MO.1 - Axe. e. There are many persons in the same village with the same name as that of the accused i.e., Tirupataiah. f. The prosecution failed to prove the motive. However, panchayats were held long back and the latest panchayat was held about three years back. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as the motive.
g. PWs.2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution.
h. There are contradictions in the version of the deceased in Ex.P16 - statement recorded by PW.11 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration.
i. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution and they failed to discharge the said burden.
j. Benefit of doubt shall always be given to the accused. k. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court convicted the accused and he was in jail from 18.07.2013 to 07.08.2018.
6. Whereas, Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that though some of the witnesses, including PWs.2 and 3 - eyewitnesses turned hostile and did not 12 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 support the prosecution, their chief examination to the extent relevant and useful can be considered. PW.2, during cross examination by the accused, admitted that the injured was conscious. There is no contradiction in the version of the deceased in Ex.P.16 - statement recorded by PW.11 and in Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration. In both the statements, the deceased specifically stated the surname of the accused Gogula Tirupathaiah. Therefore, the accused cannot take advantage stating that there are many persons in the village with the same name of the accused i.e., Tirupataiah and that the deceased did not state the surname of the accused in Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration. On considering the said evidence only, the trial Court convicted the appellant. It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. The offence committed by the accused is serious and grave in nature. Conviction can be recorded solely relying on the Dying Declaration - Ex.P19. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present appeal.
7. As discussed supra, according to prosecution, the motive for the offense is that the deceased maintained illicit relation with the wife of the accused. However, PW.5 - the mother of the deceased, deposed that the deceased and the accused had some disputes in respect of a house. She has further deposed that the accused threatened them to compromise.
13
KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013
8. In Ex.P.16 - Statement recorded by PW.11 - Investigating Officer, the deceased stated that about ten years back, the accused held a panchayat before the village elders suspecting that there was illegal intimacy between the deceased and wife of the accused - Sugunamma. The elders advised that no one shall interfere with the others. From that time, he never interfered. In that connection, about one month back, a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife and the village elders pacified the matter. However, in Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration, the deceased stated that there is no enmity between him and the accused. The accused participated in politics and the deceased was an agriculturist. He did not know the reason for the said incident. Thus, PW.11 - Investigating Officer, during cross examination, admitted that he has not examined any of the panchayatdars of the panchayat with regard to the illegal intimacy between the deceased and the wife of the accused.
9. Thus, there are two versions with regard to motive of the accused in killing the deceased. According to the deceased, there were disputes between him and the accused with regard to illegal intimacy maintained by him with the wife of the accused. Whereas, according to PW.5 - mother of the deceased, there were disputes 14 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 between the deceased and the accused with regard to a house property.
10. As discussed supra, PW.11 recorded the statement of the deceased vide Ex.P.16 wherein the deceased stated that about ten years back, the accused - his villager, held a panchayat before the elders of the village suspecting the illegal intimacy between his wife and the deceased. The village elders advised them no one can interfere with the other. Therefore, the deceased never interfered. However, one month back, a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife - Sugunamma. The village elders pacified the said matter. On 24.04.2012 at about 03:00 P.M., the deceased was standing under a thorny tree near the house of Mucharla Yadaiah and while he was waiting for PW.2, the accused came from back and hacked the deceased with MO.1 - Axe on the left side of his neck because of grudge on him suspecting the illegal intimacy was still going on between him and wife of the accused. When the deceased fell down, PW.2 came there, and on seeing him, the accused fled away. In order to prevent oozing of blood from the neck of the deceased, PW.2 tied a towel around his neck and informed the incident to his relatives. The brother of the deceased Yadireddy and others came there and shifted him to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. 15
KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 Mucharla Yadaiah has witnessed the incident while the accused hacking the deceased.
11. In Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration, the deceased stated that the incident has happened on 24th Tuesday, between 02:30 P.M. or 03:00 P.M., in the middle of the village. His villager Vadde Tirupati, all of a sudden came from back with an Axe and hacked on the left side of his neck. He did not know the reason for the said hacking. While hacking, the accused stated that the deceased was standing here and there in the village in spite of his repeated warnings to the deceased. After the incident, the deceased fell down and he did not know what was going in the mind of the accused. There is no enmity between him and the accused. The accused participated in politics and the deceased was doing agriculture work. He did not know the reason for the said incident. PW.3 was present while the incident has taken place. PW.2 and one Jagan came and cleaned the blood and took the injured to the hospital.
12. Thus, in Ex.P16 - statement recorded by PW.11 and Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration recorded by PW.13, the deceased has specifically stated about the incident, more particularly, date, time and that the accused hacked him on his neck with the Axe. PW.11 recovered MO.1 - Axe. There is no variation or contradiction in the statement 16 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 of the deceased in Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.19. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there are serious contradictions in the version of the deceased is incorrect. It is relevant to note that Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration was recorded by P.W.13 by following the procedure laid down under Rule 32 of Criminal Rules of Practice. Prosecution has examined P.W.13, learned Magistrate who recorded Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration wherein the deceased specifically deposed about the offences committed by the accused and the manner in which it was committed.
13. It is also apt to note that if there is variation in the statements of the deceased recorded by the Police Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate has to be considered and relied and it would stand on higher footing than the declaration made to Police Officer as Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in Makhan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana 1 and also in State of U.P Vs. Veerpal 2. In the present case, there are no contradictions. 1 2022 Live Law (SC) 677 2 Crl.A.No.34 of 2022, dated 01.02.2022 17 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013
14. PWs.2 and 3 - eyewitnesses turned hostile. They are the villagers of the accused and the deceased. PW.2 deposed that about ten months back, at about 02:30 P.M., while he was proceeding to his agriculture field, and when he reached near the house of PW.3, he saw the deceased lying with injuries in a pool of blood. Several people gathered there and PW.1 was also there. The injured was shifted in a jeep. During cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that he made statement to the police in Ex.P.2. During cross examination by the accused, he has admitted that the injured was conscious. PW.3 - another eyewitness to the incident also turned hostile.
15. It is relevant to note that the incident had occurred on 24.04.2012 and the learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of PWs.2 and 3 on 18.02.2013. As discussed supra, the accused, deceased and PWs.2 and 3 belong to the same village - Murthuzapally village. Having given their statements to the Police under Section - 161 Cr.P.C, both of them turned hostile. May be the accused won over them.
16. PW.4 is a circumstantial witness. However, he visited the deceased in the hospital and witnessed the injuries. On enquiry, the deceased informed him that the accused hacked him with an 18 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 Axe. PW.5 is the mother of the deceased and she has specifically deposed that on coming to know about the attack on her son, she visited the Gandhi Hospital and saw the injuries on the neck of her son. She also stated that the deceased was conscious and that on enquiry, the deceased informed her that the accused attacked him with Axe. She stated that she was threatened by the accused to compromise.
17. PWs.6, 7, 9 and 10 turned hostile. PW.11 specifically deposed about investigation conducted, recording statements, etc. However, he has not examined any of the panchayatdars who participated in the panchayat with regard to illicit relation of wife of the accused with the deceased. The accused cannot take faulty investigation/defective investigation as defence and ground and seek acquittal. It is settled law that faulty investigation is not a ground to acquit the accused, when there is other specific evidence. In the present case, Exs.P.16 and P.19 are the statements recorded by PW.11 - Investigating Officer and Dying Declaration recorded by PW.13 - Magistrate, respectively. In both the statements, the deceased specifically stated that the accused attacked him with an Axe, receipt of injuries, etc. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that none of the eyewitnesses supported the prosecution and conviction cannot be recorded on the 19 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 sole basis of Ex.P.19 Dying Declaration, are unsustainable. Both Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.19 are supported by other witnesses. Both of them inspire confidence. However, accused failed to disprove the same during cross examination. Therefore, relying on Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration, conviction can be recorded.
18. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there were many persons in the same village with the same name of the accused i.e., Tirupathaiah and therefore, prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence, it is to be seen that in Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration, the deceased specifically stated that his villager 'Vadde Tirupathi' attacked him with an Axe. Even in Ex.P.16 - statement also, the deceased specifically stated that his villager Gogula Tirupathaiah attacked him. PW.4 - cousin and PW.5 - mother of the deceased also stated that on enquiry, the deceased informed them about the attack by the accused. Hogula is the surname of the accused and he belongs to Vaddera Community. Therefore, the appellant/accused cannot take advantage of the same, more particularly, when the other evidence is corroborative.
19. As discussed supra, the incident had occurred on 24.04.2012 and the deceased died on 09.05.2012. The offence committed by the accused is serious and grave in nature.
20
KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013
20. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that PW.1 - wife of the deceased did not state before the police that her deceased husband informed her that the accused attacked him. However, perusal of Ex.P.1 - complaint reveals that PW.1 specifically stated about the attack of the accused on her deceased husband.
21. The trial Court, on considering the entire evidence, gave a specific finding that when the Dying Declaration was found to be voluntary one, free from embellishments and an untainted one and free from coercion and undue influence, etc., there cannot be any doubt to record conviction basing on the Dying Declaration. It was further observed by the trial Court that the main purpose of recording Dying Declaration is to ascertain the cause of death and the circumstance which ultimately resulted in his/her death as the case may be. The trial Court also considered the deposition of PW.13 - Magistrate who recorded Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration.
22. The trial Court also considered that PWs.2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution. However, according to the trial Court, there is consistent evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5, which supported Ex.P.16 - Statement of the deceased recorded by PW.11 and Ex.P.19 - Dying Declaration recorded by 21 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 PW.13. The hostile testimony of the mediators for scene of offence and inquest panchanama, confession and seizure of MO.1, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the Dying Declaration will always prevail over the other hostile testimonies. It would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. The trial Court also held that the Dying Declaration can form sole basis of conviction, provided that it is free from infirmities and satisfied by various tests. The statement should be consistent throughout, if the deceased had several opportunities of making such declarations, that is to say if there are more than one Dying Declaration, they should be consistent. If the Dying Declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in a fit state of mind, it can be relied on without any corroboration. As discussed supra, in the present case also, the version of the deceased in Exs.P.16 and P.19 is consistent.
23. The trial Court also considered the contention of the appellant with regard to name of the accused, motive and recovery of MO.1 - Axe. The impugned judgment is reasoned and well-founded one and there is no error in it.
24. As discussed supra, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused by producing cogent evidence. On consideration of the said evidence, the trial Court recorded conviction against the accused 22 KL,J& SKS,J CRLA_687_2013 vide impugned judgment. The offence committed by the accused is serious and grave in nature. The appellant/accused failed to make out any case to interfere with the said reasoned and well-founded judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 18.07.2013 in S.C.No.599 of 2012 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar District. The appellant is on bail, granted by this Court. Therefore, the appellant/accused is hereby directed to surrender before the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar District, for undergoing the balance sentence of imprisonment, within a period of one month from today, failing which, liberty is granted to the trial Court to take steps in accordance with law to apprehend and incarcerate him for the balance period as per the confirmed sentence. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.01.2024 GSP/TJMR