Madras High Court
D.Rajendran vs State By on 14 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.17 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA
Crl.A. No.17 of 2016
D.Rajendran Appellant
Versus
State by
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
(Cr. No.2243/2004) Respondent
Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the conviction and sentence made in S.C.
No.80 of 2012 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Tiruppur, dated 22.12.2015 and acquit the accused.
For Appellant : Mr. B.Kumarasamy
For Respondent : Mr. S.Balaji
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.12.2015 rendered by the Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur in S.C.No.80 of 2012.
2. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-
Provision Sentence
Section 450 IPC 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
Crl.A.No.17 of 2016
Provision Sentence
Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of one year.
Section 509 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment.
2. The factual matrix as elicited from the prosecution witnesses and other materials is as under:-
i) The victim in this case viz., one Srimathi and her husband one Sanal Kumar (P.W.5) were working in a Banian factory at Tiruppur. They were residing as tenants in the house belonging to the father of the appellant which is within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station.
ii) One month prior to the occurrence, the appellant had been teasing and harassing the said Srimathi. Coming to know about the same, P.W.1, the father of the victim and P.W.5 the husband of the deceased have informed the parents of the appellant and also warned the appellant.
While so, on 05.10.2004, around 2.30 pm, finding that the victim was alone in her house, the appellant had trespassed into her house and committed rape on her and had threatened her saying that if she discloses about the same to anybody, he would outrage her modesty by defaming her saying that it is only she, who had called him and given letter to him and the appellant had also humiliated the victim. Due to the harassment made by the appellant, the victim Srimathi had gone to her parents house and started living there.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016
iii) On 12.10.2004, the deceased Srimathi and her father Radhakrishnan/P.W.1 have gone to the rented premises to take her belongings. At that time, the appellant and his relatives have humiliated the victim and her father saying that she was in a relationship with the appellant.
iv) Whileso, on the next day viz., on 13.10.2004, when P.W.1 and P.W.2, the parents of the victim and P.W.5, the victim's husband had gone out of the house, the victim, due to humiliation and frustration, committed suicide by hanging herself.
v) On the complaint, Ex.P1 given by P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station (P.W.12), has registered a case in Crime No.2243 of 2004 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (printed copy of the FIR is Ex.P16) and handed over the F.I.R. to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, P.W.13 for investigation.
vi) P.W.13, who took up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence at 13.45 hours on 13.10.2004, prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.8. and drew a rough sketch (Ex.P17). On the same day he recovered M.O.1, Saree used by the victim to commit suicide and also recovered Ex.P2, the suicide note left by the victim. He had obtained signatures of the witnesses in the Mahazar. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of Radhakrishnan (P.W.1), Ambujam (P.W.2), Jeyaraj (P.W.3), Johnson (P.W.4), https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 Sanalkumar (P.W.5), Dr.Susila (P.W.6), Sadhasivam (P.W.7), Balasubramanian (P.W.8) and Sridhar (P.W.9) and on the same day he had altered the offence to one under Section 306 for the offence pertaining to abetment of suicide and sent the alteration report, Ex.P18 to the Court.
vii) On 16.10.2004, PW13 had arrested the appellant and remanded him to judicial custody. On 18.10.2004, he had recorded the statement of one Thangavel and P.W.5 Sanal Kumar. On the same day, P.W.5 had handed over a school diary containing the signatures of the victim and PW13 had sent them for comparison of signatures to the Court. On the same day, he had received a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.10) and recorded his statement. On 25.10.2004, PW13 had examined P.W.6 Dr.Susila and one Venkatesan and recorded their statements and after completing the investigation, filed the final report against the accused for the offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and under Section 306 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate – I, Tiruppur.
viii) The case was taken up in P.R.C. No.4 of 2008 by Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur. The learned Magistrate, after finding that the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions and after complying with the formalities, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the case was taken up on file in S.C. No.168/2008 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 and it was made over to Magalir Needhimandram Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.
ix) The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the prosecution and defence and after perusing the records and on appearance of the accused, found prima facie material against the accused for offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 306 IPC. When questioned, the accused denied the charges and sought to be tried. Meanwhile, the case was transferred to the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, on 30.11.2012 and renumbered as S.C.No.80/2012. Thereafter, on 19.08.2000, the case was transferred to Mahila Court (Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Tiruppur).
x) The Trial Court framed charges for offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 and under Section 306 IPC. The appellant/accused denied the charges and sought to be tried.
xi) In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Exs.P1 to P.19 and M.O.1. After completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., he denied the alleged charges, however, no witness was examined on the side of the defence.
xii) The Trial Court, after hearing both sides and based on the evidence, having found that the charge against the accused under Section 306 has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 discharged the appellant thereof, however, altered the charges under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC to one under Sections 450 and 509 IPC and found him guilty thereof and convicted him as stated above. Assailing the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
3. Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court, having found the accused not guilty for offences under Section 376 r/w. 511 I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C., has altered the charges and convicted the accused for offence under Sections 450 and 509 IPC on the same set of evidence. He further made the following submissions:
a) The Trial Court, having found the accused not guilty for the offences for which he was initially charged, erred in finding him guilty and convicting him for the altered charges under Sections 450 and 509 IPC, without there being any legal evidence on record.
b) The Trial Court, without there being any evidence to show that the accused committed criminal trespass into the house of the deceased on 5.10.2004 at 02.30 p.m. and intended to outrage the modesty of a woman, had erred in convicting the appellant by altering the charges.
c) The Trial Court, failed to note that the victim had not implicated the accused in any manner in the suicide note (Ex.P2). In the suicide note, the victim had not made any allegation as against the accused or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 about the conduct of the accused as alleged in the charge sheet.
d) The first incident is alleged to have taken place on 5.10.2004 and even as per the witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5, they had the knowledge of it on the same day, whereas no complaint had been given.
The conduct of the deceased as well as the witnesses in not giving any complaint to the Police immediately creates a grave suspicion and doubt in the case of prosecution.
e) The non-examination of independent witnesses around the place of occurrence with regard to the alleged house trespass by the appellant on 05.10.2004 at the rented premises, creates suspicion in the prosecution case. Admittedly, as per P.W.5, there are several other houses nearby the place of occurrence, however, none of the independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution.
f) Non-examination of Thangavelu, the local Councilor, to whom the prosecution witnesses are stated to have informed about the conduct of the accused, creates doubt in the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that immediately after the occurrence on 05.10.2004, a complaint was given to the said Thangavelu. The intimation given to the said Thangavelu was also not stated by the witnesses during initial enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer one Palanisamy (P.W.10).
g) When the victim herself has not implicated or made any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 allegations as against the appellant, the conviction of the appellant made by the Trial Court based on the later improvements, exaggerations and embellishments by the interested witnesses, who are only hearsay witnesses, is against the principles of evidence. Hence, he prays to set aside the order of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court.
4. Mr.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the victim, a married lady, was a tenant in the premises belonging to the appellant's father and when the victim was alone at home, the appellant had attempted to rape her and when she had raised alarm, the appellant had threatened her saying that he would spin stories against her and defame her, due to which, she had committed suicide at her parents house on 13.10.2004.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that with regard to the earlier incidents on 05.10.2004 and 12.10.2004, no complaints have been made to the respondent police and none of the independent witnesses around that area have been examined. He would further submit that it is the admitted case of the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) that no Mahazars or rough sketches were prepared in respect of the place of occurrence of the earlier incidents. He would also submit that the complaint had been given only after the suicide of victim on 13.10.2004. He would also submit that the victim has left a suicide note (Ex.P2) wherein she has not implicated the appellant. He would further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 submit that though the Trial Court has found that the prosecution has not proved the charges of Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and under Section 306 IPC, without there being any legal evidence for trespass or intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, had, on presumptions and assumptions, found the appellant guilty for the altered charges.
6. Heard the Mr. B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and perused the records.
7. As stated above, originally the charges were framed against the appellant and tried for offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 306 IPC, however, on completion of the trial, the Trial Court found the petitioner not guilty for offences which were charged and altered the offences to one Sections 450 and 509 IPC and found him guilty thereof.
8. What is to be seen is,
(i) whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts by letting any legal evidence? and
(ii) whether the Trial Court is right in altering the charges and finding the appellant guilty for offences under the altered charges and convicting him thereof?
9. It is seen that a case has been registered based on the compliant given by P.W.1 Radhakrishnan, father of the victim and the entire case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 revolves around the evidence of PW1. The evidence of P.W.1 in crux is as under:-
(i) He is an employee of Fire Service Department and he has got two sons and one daughter, the deceased. He had given his daughter in marriage to P.W.5. five years prior to the occurrence and arranged for a rented house for the couple.
(ii) The appellant, the son of the house owner where the victim resided, started to tease and harass her four to five months prior to the occurrence. Despite the fact that the same was informed to the parents of the appellant requesting to warn him, the appellant had continued the harassment.
(iii) On 5.10.2004, taking advantage of the absence of others in the nearby houses, the appellant had trespassed into the house of the victim and attempted to rape her and on raising of alarm by the deceased, he had come out of the house and threatened her saying that if she complains about the incident to anybody, he would spoil her name by saying that it is only she, who had invited him. On the same day in the evening, P.W.1 and his wife (PW2) had gone to the house of the appellant and informed his parents about the incident and when questioned, the appellant had replied saying that he got love letters written by the deceased to him and that he would expose the truth. By that time, the parents of the appellant had intervened and pacified that they would warn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 the appellant and assured P.W.1 that they would get a good house for his daughter and had requested P.W.1 to inform the victim and her husband to vacate the house. Thereafter, he had taken her daughter to his house and she had been staying with him.
(iv) On 12.10.2004, during the noon time, he, along with the victim had gone to the rented premises to take the clothes and while they were returning, the appellant, his wife, his parents and relatives have humiliated him and his daughter by saying that she only had committed all the mistakes and she acts as if she does not know anything. Having been humiliated, they had returned to their home. When he had asked his daughter whether he could give a complaint to the Police, she had refused.
(v) On the next day, he had planned to go to a temple alongwith the victim and his wife PW2, but, since it was a new moon day and the buses used to be crowded, he and his wife-PW2 alone have gone to the temple leaving behind his daughter and grandchild at home and when they had returned from the temple, they had seen their daughter/victim having committed suicide inside the house by hanging from the ceiling.
He and his wife had raised alarm and hearing the same, the staff from Fire Station had rushed to his house and they had descended the victim from the ceiling and had taken her to Ganga hospital to provide first aid, where, the Doctor, after examining the victim, had declared that the she https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 was brought dead. Thereupon, he had given a complaint (Ex.P1) to the Police Station and the respondent had referred the case for enquiry to the Revenue Divisional Officer.
10. P.W.2, wife of P.W.1, had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.
11. P.W.5, the husband of the deceased had also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and he had further deposed that he and his wife-the victim had informed the parents of the appellant about the misbehaviour of the appellant with his wife and that in respect of the incident on 5.10.2004, a complaint was made to the local Councilor one Thangavelu and he had also warned the accused. His further evidence is that on the same day, his wife had asked him to look for another house and he had agreed for her suggestion and that he had left his wife in his father-in- law's house, where, she had committed suicide. He had further deposed that the deceased had left a suicide note Ex.P2.
12. P.W.9 is the elder brother of the deceased. He had deposed that since his wife had gone to her parents house, he had came to his parent's house on 06.10.2004 for having lunch and at that time, his parents, viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 had informed him that the appellant had misbehaved with his sister on 5.10.2004 and since his sister and parents have asked him not to proceed further, he had not given any compliant. He had also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
13. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the colleagues of P.W.1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 working in the Fire Department. P.W.7 had deposed that he had gone to the house of P.W.1 and had descended the body of the victim from the ceiling. P.W.4 and P.W.8 had attested the Mahazar in respect of recovery of Ex.P2.
14. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy and given opinion (Ex.P.14). As per the opinion, the victim is stated to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.
15. P.W.11 is the handwriting expert. He had, after comparison, opined that Ex.P2 (Suicide Note) is written by the victim. The report and reasoning sheet were marked as Exs.P14 and P.15.
16. P.W.12 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruppur Police Station. He had deposed that on the complaint given by P.W.1, he had registered the case under Ex.P14 in Crime No.2243 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and since the victim had committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, he had referred the case to the Revenue Divisional Officer for enquiry and the Revenue Divisional Officer, based on the statement of witnesses had concluded that the victim had committed suicide due to the humiliation and harassment caused by the appellant while attempting to sexually abuse her.
17. PW13, the investigating officer, in his cross examination, had admitted that he had not prepared observation Mahazar or rough sketch in respect of the premises rented to the appellant and belonging to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 parents of the appellant and that he had not noted the door number of that house. He had further admitted that though he had examined the neighbours of the rented premises, he had not cited them as witnesses in the case. He further admitted that he had examined the Councilor one Thangavelu, however, he was also not cited as witness before the Court. His further admission is that P.W.1 has not informed him about intimating the parents of the appellant about the incident on 5.10.2004 and P.W.2 had not stated about the trespass committed by the appellant into the rented premises and that no previous complaint was made in respect of the incidents alleged to have taken place on 5.10.2004 and 12.10.2004.
18. The Trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, found that the charges framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and under Section 306 IPC, were not proved. However, strangely, without affording opportunity to the appellant to defend, had altered the charges to one under Sections 450 and 509 IPC and found him guilty.
19. Now, coming to the altered charges, the Trial Court had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 450 and 509 IPC. In order to establish the charge under Section 450 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had committed house-trespass as defined in Section 442 IPC and he did so in order to commit any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 offence punishable with imprisonment for life. In order to establish the charge under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had uttered any word, or made any sound or gesture, or exhibited any object to a woman intending that it shall be heard or seen by that woman, or he intruded upon the privacy of the woman; and he did so with the intention to insult the modesty of that woman.
20. The facts narrated above would reveal that it is a case of suicide by a married woman and as per the prosecution, the appellant is said to have attempted to rape the victim/deceased and humiliated her due to which she had committed suicide by hanging on 13.10.2004. The victim has also left a suicide note Ex.P2 which is also not in dispute. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the father, mother and husband of the deceased as P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. They have deposed about the victim having spoken to them about the harassment and humiliation made by the appellant on 5.10.2004 and 12.10.2004 and they having informed about the same to the parents of the appellant and to a local Councilor. They are only hearsay witnesses in respect of what was alleged to have been told to them by the victim/deceased. The victim/deceased had committed suicide on 13.10.2004. Though the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature, the victim/deceased or her relatives have not given any complaint to the police in respect of the incidents on 5.10.2004 and 12.10.2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016
21. Even in the suicide note, Ex.P2 dated 13.10.2004, the victim/deceased had not incriminated the appellant. It is relevant to extract the contents of Ex.P2, the suicide note, which reads as under:-
"md;g[s;s mg;gh.
vd; nkny ve;j jg;g[k; ,y;iyd;D epU:gpf;f vdf;F ntw tHp bjhpay/ vd;id ek;g[';f/ vd; nky; xU rjtPjk;Tl jg;g[ ,y;iy/ vjhh;jkh gHfpdj jg;gh epidr;R vd;id mrp';fgLj;jpl;lh';f/ ,e;j mtkhdj;ij jh';fpl;L thH vdf;F tpUg;gk; ,y;iy/ vd;id kd;dpr;rpL';f/"
22. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that PW1 and PW5 have made a complaint to the local Councilor before the death of the victim and further as per PW5, the house where they were living was a compounded house and several other persons were living in the nearby houses within the compound. Strangely, neither the local Councilor nor any independent witnesses like the neighbours were examined by the prosecution to speak about the earlier incidents. When such being the case, there is absolutely no witness to speak about having seen the appellant committing house trespass or having uttered any word, made any gesture or intended to insult the modesty of the victim. Without there being any legal evidence, the Trial Court had altered the charges and convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 450 and 509 IPC merely on surmises and conjectures.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016
23. In Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439, it has been held as under:-
"10. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that “human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions”. Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. “The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.” In fact, it is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839] , State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh [(1974) 3 SCC 277 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 886 : AIR 1973 SC 2407] , Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 35 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 315 : AIR 1981 SC 765] , Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. [(2003) 12 SCC 377 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 429] and Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2007) 12 SCC 230 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 264] ).
11. In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637 : 1957 Cri LJ 1014] this Court observed:
(AIR p. 645, para 12) “12. … considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between ‘may be true’ and ‘must https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 be true’ there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence [before an accused can be convicted].”
12. Thus, the law on the point may be summarised to the effect that in a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature, the court should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of the offence and make an effort to see that such an instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."
24. In Digamber Vaishnav and another vs. State of Chattisgarh (2019 (2) SCC Crl. 300), it has been held that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and there can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion however grave it may be and the strong suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof.
25. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that the Trial Court, without there being any legal evidence on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 record, had altered the charges and found the accused guilty and convicted him.
26. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the altered charges for the offence under Sections 450 and 509 IPC. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant, shall stand discharged.
14.06.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order bkn/ssk.
To:
1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Deputy Registrar | (Criminal Section), | with a direction to send back the High Court, Madras. | original records to the Trial Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/22 Crl.A.No.17 of 2016 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA, J., bkn/ssk.
Crl.A. No.17 of 2016 14.06.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/22