Madras High Court
Balaji vs The State on 19 March, 2019
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 06.03.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Criminal Appeal Nos.343, 358, 382 & 399 of 2011
Balaji .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.343/2011
Ramesh .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.358/2011
Vijayakumar .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.382/2011
Subramani @ Mani .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.399/2011
Vs
The State,
Rep. By The Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Thiruverkadu .. Respondent in all Crl.As
Common Prayer:- These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section
374(2) Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,
Poonamallee in S.C.No.220 of 2010 dated 09.06.2011.
In Crl.A.No.343 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
For Respondent : Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
In Crl.A.No.358 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Chandrasekar
For Respondent : Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
In Crl.A.No.382 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.V.Chinnasamy
For Respondent : Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
In Crl.A.No.399 of 2011
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondent : Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
COMMON JUDGMENT
Balaji – A.1 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2011. Subramani @ Mani – A.2 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2011. Ramesh – A.3 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2011. Vijayakumar – A.4 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.382 of 2011.
2.The above four appellants who are arrayed as A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.220/2010 on the file of the learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Poonamallee, faced charges for offences under Sections http://www.judis.nic.in 3 120(B), 341, 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. The trial Court found them guilty of all the charges. Sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 120(B) I.P.C; one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 341 I.P.C; seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C., and fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The period of sentence already undergone ordered to be set off.
3.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
Balaji – A.1, is the owner of an Ambasador Car bearing registration No.TN 09 AK 8290. He has leased out his Car to M/s.Banian Travels, which was engaged by M/s.SDB SISCO India Private Limited the collection Agents of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the TASMAC”) for travel of their collection agents.
4.A.1 to A.4 were known to each other. They conspired to rob the TASMAC collection. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 27.12.2008, at about 1.30 pm, when A.1 was driving the said Car along with Sriramulu (P.W.1) and Shivakumar (P.W.2) who were the representatives of M/s.SDB SISCO India Private Limited, Ramesh – A.3, came in a Motorcycle and intercepted http://www.judis.nic.in 4 the Car. Soon after, A.2 and A.4 showed knife gain entry into the Car and hijacked the Car along with its occupants.
5.After driving to a short distance, stopped the Car, dropped Sriramulu (P.W.1), Shivakumar (P.W.2) and A.1. They left with the Car along with the collection money. After taking away Rs.7,28,400/- kept in the box. A.2 to A.4, deserted the Car and fled away. Sriramulu (P.W.1), the Cash Operative Executive of M/s.SDB SISCO India Private Limited gave a complaint to Thiruverkadu Police Station on 27.12.2008 about the robbery.
6.Based on the complaint, the Police registered F.I.R., and took up the case for investigation. In the course of the investigation, they found that A.1, the owner cum Driver of the Ambassador Car, in which, the cash was Carried by the defacto complainant, was hand in glove with the other accused persons A.2 to A.4. They have planned for robbery and as per the conspiracy, A.3 intercepted the Car, while it was moving on Paruthipattu Sundara Sozhapuram road, A.2 to A.4 picked quarrel with the occupants of the Car as if thir car has hit a boy and fled without stopping. Therefore, they forced their entry into the Car. A.1 being a co-conspirator facilitated them to enter the Car. They took 'U' turn and drove the Car to a short distance. Stopped the Car in a secluded place. Sriramulu (P.W.1) and Shivakumar http://www.judis.nic.in 5 (P.W.2) were asked to get down then, they took away the Car and cash.
7.Realising they were duped by the gang, P.W.1 took the help of the Villager and informed his officer. On receiving the message, Police came and traced the Car abandoned near Kannampalayam. Except Rs.70,000/-, kept separately in a pouch, the rest of the collection money was robbed away. Initially, unknowing the connection of A.1 in the crime, the Car was returned back to A.1, being its owner. Later, in another case, A.1 along A.2 to A.4 were arrested, when all the four accused were found together along with the Ambasador Car and deadly weapons. The prosecution further, from the investigation was able to recover portion of the money and some of the properties purchased or redeemed out of the stolen money, based on the confession statement of the accused persons.
8.Before the trial Court, 20 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 20) were examined; 15 exhibits (Exs.1 to 15) and 17 material objects (M.Os.1 to 17) were marked. In defence, one Shanthi w/o A.1 was examined as D.W.1. The trial Court, after considering the evidence placed before it, held all the four accused guilty and convicted as stated above.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
9.The appellants herein have filed separate appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed on them.
10.The main contention of the appellants is that the F.I.R., was registered after delay of 2 ½ hours of alleged occurrence. The reason for delay, not explained by the prosecution. According to P.Ws.1, 2, 19 & 20, the alleged occurrence took place on 27.12.2007 at about 13.30 hours. While the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police station is hardly three kilo meters. The reason for registering the F.I.R., only at 16.00 hours not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
11.P.Ws.1 and 2 are the two occupants in the said Car where the TASMAC collections were transported. Apart from these two witnesses, A.1 was driving the Car. The contradictions between P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their testimony clearly establishes the falsehood of the prosecution case. However, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the contradictions between the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The complaint itself has been lodged only after the defacto complainant (P.W.1) consulted his superior Officer, over phone. The delay in registering the F.I.R., after consultation with the superior officer has given room for exaggeration and embellishment. The http://www.judis.nic.in 7 F.I.R., - Ex.P.14 and the deposition of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) does not corroborate each other.
11.In the F.I.R.,, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) has not said anything about the interception of the Car by two persons (A.2 and A.4) saying that the Car has hit a person but proceeded without stopping. This version is spoken by P.W.1 for the first time before the Court, which creates doubt about the veracity and reliability of the statement made by P.W.1.
12.Pointing out that A.1 to A.4 were arrested on 13.02.2009, in connection with different case registered in Crime No.53/2009, for an occurrence which took place on 13.02.2009. Whereas, the present case registered under Crime No.572/2008 for offence occurred on 27.12.2008, but the serial number of the printed F.I.R., does not tally. For the crime No.572/2008 registered in connection with the occurrence dated 27.12.2008, the printed F.I.R., bears Serial No.1292843 and for the Crime No.53/2009 registered in connection with the occurrence which took place on 13.02.2009, the serial number of the printed F.I.R., is 1292852. When the difference between the two crime numbers is more than 53, difference between the serial number of printed F.I.R., is less than 53. Therefore, the manipulation in registering the F.I.R., with Anti date cannot be ruled out. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
13.The sole witness to the alleged confession statement of all the accused persons is the Village Administrative Officer. His evidence cannot inspire the confidence to hold that the alleged confession was voluntary. Further, P.W.18 - Village Administrative Officer admits that the confession statement was recorded by the Police and not by him therefore, the statement given to the Police by the accused is hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The witness for mahazar and confession could not identify the accused from whom the material objects were recovered. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.18 - the Village Administrative Officer in connection with the confession and recovery has to be eschewed.
14.According to the prosecution, based on the alleged confession of A.1, M.O.1 knife, cash of Rs.38,000/- and jewels were recovered from the house of A.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence had not stated anything about the knife while they were intercepted by the accused persons. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that no witness has spoken implicating the accused for using knife at the time of occurrence. Recovery of knives M.O.2 (series) and connecting the knives with that of the crime is beyond any legal comprehension. http://www.judis.nic.in 9
15.The seizure of four knives under Ex.P.6 recovery mahazar is only to falsely implicate the accused in the crime though none of the witness had spoken about knives. The Investigating Officers - P.Ws.18, 19, 20 have failed to explain how M.O.2 (series) knives are connected with the crime alleged. This failure on the part of the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
16.Though, the prosecution has tried to project that the gold jewels were redeemed by A.1's wife from out of the robbed money, they were not able to place any evidence that the jewels M.Os.7 to 17 were first of all mortgaged by wife of A.1. Without material to show and prove the date of mortgage, loan amount borrowed from the mortgagee, just alleging that the jewels were redeemed from the robbed money, the jewels were taken away as it was redeemed from the robbed money. The prosecution has created record as though they came to the house of A.1 and seized the jewels, which were pledged some time before and after the occurrence, redeemed from out of the robbed money. Whereas, the evidence of D.W.1 would clearly establish that those jeweleries were the sridhana property of A.1's wife (D.W.1) given by her parents during the time of their marriage and Rs.38,000/- taken away from her house was the sale proceeds of new jewels purchased by her through personal earning and kept in her house. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
17.The person to whom the jewels were mortgaged by A.1's wife, not examined by the prosecution. The seizure of jewels does not fall within the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial Court has failed to consider that the respondent Police has seized the jewels of A.1's wife and his child, as if, it was pledged and redeemed out of the robbed money. There is no iota of material, on the side of the prosecution, to prove that the jewellery were earlier pledged to some person and the same was later redeemed by A.1.
18.In the said circumstances, when the prosecution has failed to place documents to prove the theory of pledge and redeem, the evidence of D.W.1 that her Sridhana properties (alleged jewels) were taken away by the Police. New jewels purchased from G.R.Thanganagaimaligai, T.Nagar was sold at the same shop and encashed at Rs.38,000/- and the balance local made jewels were shown as if pledged and renewed is probable.
19.As far as A.1 with respect to charge for offence under Section 392 r/w 397 and 120(B) I.P.C., it is contended when there there is no direct overt act by A.1 in commission of offence for offence under Section 392 I.P.C., and failure of the prosecution to establish offence of conspiracy, the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 conviction of the trial Court sentencing A.1 for offence under Section 120(B), 392 r/w 397 I.P.C., is without any basis and material evidence.
20.The learned counsel for A.1 would further submit that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2, the so called eye witnesses have implicated A.1 and said anything incriminating against A.1. Merely because A.1 was seen in the company with the other accused vis., A.2 to A.4, after few months of the occurrence, along with a Car, the trial Court has held A.1 guilty for the offence of conspiracy, to commit robbery.
21.As far as conviction of A.1 for offence under Sections 392 r/w 397 I.P.C., is concerned, it is contended that when admittedly, no overt act has been spoken by the prosecution witnesses, the conduct of identification parade which was not at all warranted since, P.W.1 and P.W.2 know A.1 already is only to make believable the Court that the prosecution has investigated the case properly. The contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding, 'when the money was found missing throw grave doubt about the case of the prosecution.
22.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the falsehood in the case of the prosecution about the confession and recovery http://www.judis.nic.in 12 has been exposed from the evidence of P.W.18 - the Village Administrative Officer who has deposed that he did not enter the houses of the accused during search proceedings. In the said circumstances, the trial Court judgment is liable to be set aside.
23.The failure of the prosecution to seize the Ambassador Car, the cellphone and Rs.70,000/- kept in the pouch gives doubt about the entire prosecution case. The prosecution has not explained the presence of Shivakumar (P.W.2) an unauthorised person along with Sriramalu (P.W.1).
24.The prosecution failure to place the fingerprints lifted from the scene of occurrence and the fingerprint Expert opinion for the Court to appreciate would clearly indicates that if they produce the opinion of the Expert, it would have cut the root of the prosecution and would have been fatal to the case of the prosecution.
25.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state would submit that P.W.1 is the Cash Executive Officer of SDB SISCO India Private Limited. The contract of collecting TASMAC sales collection from the outlets and remitting to the Office is entrusted to this company. On 27.12.2008, P.W.1 along with Shivakumar (P.W.2) Cash http://www.judis.nic.in 13 Operator had engaged the Car of A.1 from P.W.5 Travels Company and went for collection. First they went to Mettukuppam TASMAC outlet next to Abiramapuram TASMAC later several other shops located at Maduravoyal Vanagaram shop at Poonamallee – Avadi Highways, Avadi Market, Paruthipattu and return back to Tiruverkadu via Sundara Sozhapuram. At that time, a man came in a two wheeler had intercepted the Car. A.1 - Driver of the Car, stopped it. P.W.1 has identified the person who intercepted the Car as A.3. He picked quarrel with A.1. At that time, two others (A.3 and A.4) came and forced them to turn back the Car saying the Car has hit a person and he is lying in a pool of blood. A.2, A.3 and A.4 showed knife and told to keep quite and got into the Car. They forced A.1 to vacate the driver seat, pushed him towards P.W.1 and A.4 took the steering of the Car. They said they were proceeding towards Avadi Police Station and took a 'U' turn and stopped the Car near Kannampalayam, dropped Sivakumar (P.W.2), A.1 and P.W.1., took away the Car along with cash collection. The cell phone of A.1 was taken away by the other accused. After making enquiry with the local shepherds, they came to know about the name of the place they borrowed phone from one of the local person, informed the incident to the office and after that, message went to the Police Station and they contacted them.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
26.After ascertaining the location, the respondent Police reached the scene of crime. They went in search of Ambassador Car. They traced the Car which was abandoned near Kannampalayam. Except Rs.70,000/- kept in the pouch, the rest of the money was stolen away. P.W.1 has given the complaint - Ex.P.1. P.W.1 has deposed that after 45 days, the Police called him and showed the accused to identify. He identified them in the police station. He was asked to identify the two wheeler, which intercepted the Car. The cell phone, white colour Car, and four knives were identified by him. The Material Objects, Car knives, cell phone, two wheeler were marked as M.Os.1 to 5.
27.P.W.2, in his deposition, has said that, A.4 intercepted the Car, A.2 and A.3 joined soon after that and all the three accused got into the Car took them to some distance and thereafter, dropped P.Ws.1 and 2 and A.1 and left taking away the Car and cash. According to P.W.1, the person who intercepted the Car is A.3. Whereas, P.W.2, has identified A.4 as the person who intercepted the Car, this according to the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) due to efflex of time and loss of memory.
28.P.W.3 - Srinivasan, is the witness to observation mahazar - Ex.P.2. He does not say anything about the accused persons. His evidence is only to http://www.judis.nic.in 15 the effect that the Ambassador Car was standing near the cremation ground at Paruthipattu and there was a small crowd around the Car when he enquired, they said that somebody has robbed the money and left. At the request of the Inspector, he signed the observation mahazar.
29.P.W.4 - Murugan is the proprietor of M/s.Banian Travels. He has identified A.1 as the driver of the Car which he used to sent to M/s.SDB SISCO India Private Limited for rent. He does not know anything about the occurrence except remitting the cash for M/s.SDB SISCO India Private Limited and information passed on by the manager of the TASMAC about the robbery of TASMAC money on 27.12.2008.
30.P.Ws.5 to 16 are the Supervisors of the respective TASMAC shops. They have deposed that they gave the day's collection to Sriramulu (P.W.1) when he came for collection on 27.12.2008. P.W.17 the Judicial Magistrate who has conducted the Identification Parade and she has given her report. There is no much evidentiary value in her report since, P.W.1 admits that Police has shown the accused to him in the Police Station itself, after 45 days of the occurrence. As far as A.1 is concerned, the witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are known to A.1 even before the occurrence and he was their Driver on the day of occurrence.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16
31.The Ambassador Car was later secured by the Police on 16.02.2009. The Village Administrative Officer of Marckaral Village has witnessed the recording of confession statement given by A.1, recovery of material objects, based on his confession statement, under mahazar - Ex.P.6. The confession statement of Subramani (A.2) and recovery of cash and Black colour Appachi M.O.4 Motorcycle under mahazar Ex.P.8. The confession statement of Ramesh (A.3) and recovery of cash Rs.1,40,000/- under mahazar -Ex.P.10. The confession statement of Vijayakumar (A.4) and recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- under mahazar Ex.P.12. P.Ws.19 & 20 are the Investigating Officers, who have conducted the investigation and filed the final report. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the prosecution has proved all the charges through the evidence without any iota of doubt therefore, the trial Court finding of conviction and sentence has to be confirmed.
32.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants; learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State and records perused.
33.From the material evidence collected against these appellants, the prosecution has established that A.1 to A.4 had previous meeting of mind to commit the offence pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, A.1 who is the http://www.judis.nic.in 17 owner of the Car bearing registration No. TN 09 AK 8290, had rented it to M/s.Banyan Travels owned by P.W.4 - Murugananthan. He himself used to drive the Car. P.W.4, in his evidence has linked the vehicle in which the money was carried to that of A.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed that when the Car was intercepted near Paruthipattu, Sundara Sozhavaram Road, A.1 was on the wheels driving the Car A.2 to A.4 were identified as persons who picked quarrel with them and entered the Car. Forced them to take 'U' turn and after some distance, near a lake road, stopped the Car, dropped A.1, P.Ws.1 and 2 and fled with the Car and cash.
34.The evidence of P.W.1 as far as the incident is concerned stands un-impeached and the robbery of the money along with the Car is proved through their evidence as well as the recovery of the Car without the collection money of Rs.7,28,400/- near Kannampalayam by the police who came to the spot soon after the information. The omission of the prosecution to place before the Court the fingerprints lifted in the Car does not carry any significance since, A.1, who stopped the vehicle and accommodated the other accused to gain entered was spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 and their identity is well known to them. Later, while the other accused has fled with the Car and money, A.1 had stayed with P.Ws.1 and 2. The cell phone of A.1 was taken away by the other accused long with the Car and money. This cell phone was later recovered from the residence of A.1 during search. http://www.judis.nic.in 18
35.A.1 was seen along with A.2 to A.4 on 16.02.2009. The recovery of cell phone taken away by A.2 to A.4 from A.1 on the date of offence found back in possession of A.1's house search clearly establishes the chain of conspiracy between the accused persons. Since, the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy circumstantial evidence alone can disclose the conspiracy. In this case, incriminating evidence proved through P.Ws.1 & 2, the recovery mahazar pertaining to motor bike, knives and cell phone, huge cash from the possession of A.1 to A.4 based on their confession, establishes the guilt of A.1 to A.4.
36.In the F.I.R., itself P.W.1 has mentioned that two of them kept knife on their neck and threatened to obey. Later witnesses have identified the knives in the course of deposition before the court. Minor variations will not disprove the case of the prosecution. The crime has been committed on the highways after restraining P.Ws.1 and 2 who were traveling in the Car A.2 to A.4 had placed them under threat of death. Later, all fleeing away from the scene, along with money and Car. The evidence proves their guilt of offences under Sections 120(B), 341, 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. http://www.judis.nic.in 19
37.As per the witnesses for the prosecution, SDBS India Ltd., was authorised to collect cash from TASMAC outlets and remit P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the representatives of SOBS India Ltd., on the job of collection. For transport, they have engaged the service of Banian Tour Center Travels owned by P.W.4. On 27.12.2008, P.W.4 has sent the Car bearing registration No.TN 09 AK 8290. Balaji (A.1) was the Driver of the said Car. According to P.W.5 to P.W.16, on 27.12.2008, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came and collected cash from their respective TASMAC outlets which are situated at various places in Thiruvallur District. P.Ws.1 and 2 had deposed that A.1 - Balaji while driving the Car and passing near Sundra Chozapuram, a person in a two wheeler suddenly intercepted the Car. P.W.1 has identified that person as A.3. Whereas, P.W.2 has identified that person as A.2 during trial.
38.Soon after the interception, two others came. They forced themselves inside the Car and took control. The other two persons were identified as A.2 and A.4 by P.W.1; whereas, P.W.2 identified them as A.2 and A.3. The mistake in identification after lapse of more than 2 years.
39.P.W.1 has deposed in the chief examination that after 45 days from the date of incident, he went to the Police Station. Police identified the accused to him. On 25.02.2009 nearly after three months, P.W.17 http://www.judis.nic.in 20 K.S.Jayamanglam, learned Judicial Magistrate II, Thiruvallur District, has conducted identification parade and submitted her report - Ex.P.3.
40.From the deposition of Investigating Officer - P.W.19, it is evident that the cell phone of A.1 taken away from A.1 when other accused A.2 to A.4 intercepted the Car and robbed the money. The said cell phone has been recovered under mahazar - Ex.P.6. A.1 to A.4 were caught on 16.02.2009 while they were planning to commit similar crime. Through their confession statements, material objects incriminating them were recovered. The scheme of conspiracy has been discovered. The confession statements are inculpatory, in nature. The admissible portion of the confession statements provided information leading to discovery of facts which were exclusively within the knowledge of the accused persons.
41.The conspiracy which was hatched in secrecy, had come to light only from the confession statements of the accused persons. The strong circumstantial evidence against them was seen together along with the Ambassador Car bearing registration No.TN 09 AK 8290 and the weapons concealed in the Car.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21
42.Before apprehending these accused on 16.02.2009 at about 15.00 hours near Kaduvetti Pachaiammal Koil on the Poonamallee to Avadi Road, these accused persons have involved in a robbery on 13.02.2009 which was registered in Crime No.53/2009 for offences under Sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. This information disclosed by the accused persons in their confession statements.
43.The case of the prosecution has been believed by the trial Court based on the identification of the accused by eye witnesses confession statements and recovery. The admissible portions of the confession statements is in respect of the information leading to discovery of fact and for the recovery of the material objects. The prosecution case is that A.1 was with P.Ws.1 and 2 through out the enquiry pretending, as if, he has nothing to do with the crime, but, his cell phone taken away by the gang. Later, traced at the house of A.1. The other three accused were seen along with A.1 in the Car and knives in the Car has given the complete chain of conspiracy.
44.Therefore, the finding of the trial Court holding A.1 to A.4 guilty is based on reliable evidence and hence, confirmed. Accordingly, the Criminal http://www.judis.nic.in 22 Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused are confirmed. The order of the trial Court in respect of the material objects is also confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellants to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any. The sentences shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
19.03.2019 jbm Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Poonamallee.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Pre Delivery Judgement made in Crl.A.Nos.Nos.343, 358, 382 & 399 of 2011 19.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in