Madras High Court
Janakaran vs State Represented By on 30 July, 2008
Author: Prabha Sridevan
Bench: Prabha Sridevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/7/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL Crl.A.No(MD).427 of 2007 Crl.A.Nos(MD). 502 and 647 of 2007 1.Janakaran 2.Mari alias Mariappan 3.Raja 4.Kasi 5.Palani ... Appellants in Crl.A.No.427/07 Subramanian ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.502/07 Balakrishnan ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.647/07 Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur P.S., Tirunelveli District ... Respondent in all the Crl.As. Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 25.06.2007 passed in S.C.No.61 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-I, Tirunelveli. !For A - 3 : Mr.Veerakathiravan ^For A - 5 and 6: Mr.P.Ramasamy For A - 4 and 7 : Mr.Ashok Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Jeganathan For Respondent : Mr.V.Kasinathan Additional Public Prosecutor - - - - - :COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ms.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shankar was butchered to death by the members of one family because they had enmity against him. There were eight accused originally. One died i.e., A.8 pending trial and therefore, seven accused faced trial and all the seven were convicted inter alia for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are as follows.
P.W.1 Kamala is the mother of the deceased. She is the eye witness to the entire occurrence which took place in two stages - one on the road and the other on the fields. P.W.2 Iyyappan is her son and brother of the deceased and P.W.3 Abbas is the brother of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, her son, P.W.2 got married to Vijayalakshmi. At that time, when Vijayalakshmi was expecting a baby, P.W.2 requested Jayalakshmi deceased/accused-8 for the alliance of his younger brother Sankar/deceased to her daughter Gomathi. A.8 (deceased) and A.1 Balakrishnan and other relatives refused. One week prior to that, P.W.1's daughter-in-law had gone to her mother's house at Harikesavanallur. A.4 Mari @ Mariappan is married to Vijayalakshmi's another sister. Because of the refusal for the alliance, there was some misunderstanding between P.W.1's family and her daughter-in-law's family. On 15th August 1996, Vijayalakshmi gave birth to a child at Ambasamudhiram Private Hospital. Between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m., on 19/8/1996, Kamala P.W.1, Iyappan P.W.2 and one Mari went in an auto to Harikesavanallur. They were followed by the deceased Sankar and P.W.3 Abbas in a motor cycle. Near Pillaiyar temple in Harikesavanallur, they alighted from the respective vehicles. Immediately, A.1 Balakrishnan with an Aruval, A.2 Subramanian with an aruval asked them "what business do you have here?" At that time, A.3 Jenakaran with a knife, A.4 Mari @ Mariappan with a knife, A.5 Raja with a knife, A.6 Kasi with an aruval and A.7 Palani with an Aruval and the deceased/accused 8 with a match box came from the west. They surrounded them and immediately, A.8/deceased shouted "why are you looking on? Kill them". Immediately, A.4 rushed towards the deceased Sankar and stabbed him in the back. A.8/deceased threw a lighted match stick into the petrol tank of the bike, it burst into fire. Immediately, P.W.1 the deceased P.W.2, P.W.3 and the aforesaid Mari ran in various directions. P.W.1 followed her deceased son. When the two reached the field, all the seven accused surrounded the deceased and A.1 cut the deceased on the right shoulder and left neck with the aruval, A.3, A.4 and A.5 stabbed him with knifes, A.6 and A.7 cut him with an aruval, dripping with blood, the deceased fell down. She tried to call him, but there was no response, he had died. Thereafter, she proceeded to Veeravanallur Police Station at about 8.00 p.m., and narrated the whole occurrence. The Sub- Inspector Ramaiah P.W.11 took down what she stated, read it out to her and she affixed her signature on Ex.P.1, which is the complaint.
3. P.W.11 on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.150 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 435, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The registered First Information Report is Ex.P.11. He forwarded the same through Murugaiah P.W.10 First Grade Constable to the Court and higher authorities. P.W.10 handed over the First Information Report at the residence of the Judicial Magistrate, Seranmahadevi at 5.00 a.m., on 20/8/1996. P.W.12 V.Balasubramanian is the Circle Inspector, Kallidaikurichi holding additional in-charge of Veeravanallur Police Station.
4. The Investigation Officer at the relevant point of time was one Ganesan ("I.O" in short) who also filed the charge sheet, he had since expired and therefore, P.W.12 spoke from the records. According to him, the I.O on receipt of the information by phone at 9.00 p.m., took up the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence. At 10.00 p.m., he prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of P.W.4 David Jeya Raj the Village Administrative Officer and P.W.5 Pedharama Devar the Thalaiyari. He also prepared the rough sketch Ex.P.12. He caused photographs to be taken and M.O.5 series are the photographs and the negatives are M.O.6 series. At 10.30 p.m., he recovered M.O.7 the burnt bullet motor cycle, M.O.8 broken glass pieces, M.O.9 the front part of a motorcycle with a broken bulb, M.O.10 which is a bulb, M.O.11 broken indicator, M.O.12 part of a light, M.O.13 series which are broken plastic pieces of the indicator light, M.O.14 a pair of leather slipper under Ex.P.13 Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. He also prepared the rough sketch before the same witnesses at 11.15 p.m. He prepared another observation mahazar in the field where the second occurrence took place which is Ex.P.14 and prepared the rough sketch Ex.P.15. He caused photographs to be taken from four angles and they are M.O.15 series and the relevant negatives are M.O.16 series. From 12.00 mid night till 2.00 a.m., he conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased before Panchayatdars. The inquest report is Ex.P.16. Thereafter, he handed over the dead body for conducting autopsy to Chellappan Head Constable P.W.9 with a requisition Ex.P.5. He also recovered in the presence of witnesses M.O.1 the blood stained paddy, M.O.2 sample earth under Ex.P.4 mahazar. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and others.
5. P.W.9 the Head Constable handed over the dead body to P.W.7 Dr.Ulagammal the Medical Officer at Ambai Government Hospital. P.W.7, commenced the post mortem at 11.30 a.m., and gave the post mortem certificate Ex.P.6. Injuries mentioned are as follows:-
"1. An incised wound of size 10 x 6 x 4 cm (torn) the right leg at the junction of upper (torn) middle third if its lateral aspect.
2. An incised wound at size 12 x 6 x 3 cms over the lateral aspect of right thigh.
3. An incised wound of size 20 x 8 x 6 cms over the lateral aspect of right upper arm.
4. An incised wound of size 30 x 10 x 5 cm over the neck right side starting from the middle of the lower jaw to the occipital pritukence cutting the ear lobe of its middle.
5. Incised wound of size 25 x 10 x 5 cm near the (torn) starting from the parotid region to the (torn) region of scalp.
6. Incised wound of size 30 x 6 x 6 cms (torn) infra scapular region to the middle of right axilla.
7. Incised wound of size 28 x 6 x 6 cms over the left upper region to the axilla (torn) side.
8. Incised wound of size 10 x 5 x 4 cm over the back of neck below the injury. No torn.
9. Incised wound of size 5 x 3 x 3 cm over the right scapular region.
10. Incised wound of size 5 x 3 x 3 cm over the left lumber region.
11. Incised wound of size 7 x 3 x 2 cm verticular over the right lumber region close to the middle.
12. Incised wound of size 10 x 5 x 4 cms over the lateral aspect of left thigh.
13. Punctured wound of size 2 x 1 x 6 cms over the left loin. Margins are regular.
14. Incised wound of size 3 x 2 x 2 cms over the distal phalanx of left thumb at its dorsal aspect.
15. Incised wound of size 3 x 2 x 2 cm over the palmer aspect of left index finger with missing of the distal phalanx with nail on opening (torn)."
and the opinion of the Doctor as to the cause are as follows:-
"Died of shock and (torn) due to multiple injuries."
6. After the post mortem, P.W.9 took back the wearing apparel of the deceased handed it over to P.W.1 and the other objects to the Investigating Officer. M.O.3 is the full sleeved shirt and M.O.4 is the blood stained underwear. The I.O seized the above M.Os under Ex.P.17. He recorded the statement of P.W.7. On 4/9/1996, he had taken A.2, A.4, A.5 and A.6 from judicial custody to Police custody. A.2 Subramanian had come forward with a voluntary confession and the admissible portion of that is Ex.P.26. On the basis of this, the I.O recovered one Aruval M.O.17 under Ex.P.30. Similarly, A.4 had come forward with a voluntary confession and the admissible portion of that is Ex.P.27, on the basis of which M.O.31 was recovered. Similarly, A.5 had come forward with a voluntary confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.28, from which M.O.19 knife was recovered. Similarly, A.6 had come forward with a voluntary confession. The admissible portion of which is Ex.P.29 and on the basis of which, he recovered M.O.33 Vet aruval. Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicial custody and recovered M.Os were also sent to Court. On 6/9/1996, he had given Ex.P.7 requisition for sending the recovered M.Os for chemical analysis. P.W.8 Court Clerk Murugan on receipt of Ex.P.7 requisition, sent the relevant objects to the Forensic Laboratory under the Court letter Ex.P.8. He received the chemical analysis report Ex.P.9 and the serological report Ex.P.10.
7. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. His wife had given birth to a child on 15/8/1996 and to see this child, he along with his mother and brother and his maternal Uncle had proceeded to Harikesavanallur. P.W.2's evidence corroborates the evidence of his mother P.W.1 with regard to the first part of the occurrence which took place in the street. According to him, after the motor cycle burst into fire, all of them scattered in various directions. He and P.W.3 ran towards the west whereas his mother P.W.1 and the deceased Sankar ran south to the fields. According to him, his mother told him thereafter that before her eyes, the deceased was done to death by the accused.
8. P.W.3 Abbas is a resident of Kadambur. P.W.1 is his elder Sister. His evidence is also in the same lines as P.W.2.
9. After concluding the investigation, the Investigation Officer had filed the report. The prosecution also examined P.W.13 who was a witness to the confession statement. Both he and P.W.5 turned hostile.
10. To prove their case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, marked 33 documents and produced 20 M.Os. The accused when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the guilt. They examined one witness and produced one document.
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.4 to A.7 made his submission and the other learned counsel broadly adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel.
12. The main grounds advanced on behalf of the appellants are as follows:-
The motive namely, the enmity is very weak. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecution party requested that the sister of P.W.2's wife should be given in marriage to the deceased and the accused party did not agree to that and therefore, there was enmity. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if at all someone could have had some grudge, it be the prosecution party and not the accused party.
13. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ex.P.1 which is the genesis of the whole case cannot be believed since it is clear that the signature of the complainant has been obtained at the bottom of blank sheets and the contents have been filled thereafter to implicate the accused.
14. It was submitted that there was no reason for the accused to anticipate that the deceased accompanied by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 would visit their Village at that moment. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1 the mother of the deceased, they had decided suddenly at 4.00 p.m., on the fateful day to go over to Harikesavanallur to see the new born baby. In those circumstances, it is hardly believable for the accused party to be armed and to wait for the deceased and his members of the family to visit their Village, so that, they could assault him.
15. It was submitted that though in Ex.P.1 does not specifically allocate the overt acts, the case is improved during the evidence given by P.W.1 where the overt acts are distributed amongst the accused.
16. It was submitted that it is hardly believable that the mother of the deceased saw her son being put to death, did not go and lift him. P.W.1 had admitted in her evidence that her clothes were only mud stained because she went to see the deceased who was lying in the fields, but there were no blood stain.
17. It was submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who are alleged to have witnessed part of the occurrence cannot be believed and it is rather artificial that P.W.3 who hails from a different Village namely Kadambur should have decided to visit the Village where P.W.1 was residing namely Veeravanallur, so that they could all go over to Harikesavanallur.
18. It was submitted that the evidence of the so called eye witnesses is that there were indiscriminate stab injuries inflicting by the various accused whereas the medical evidence was contrary to this. There was only one punctured wound which is injury No.13.
19. The learned counsel submitted that the deceased party had criminal antecedents and had many enemies and therefore, the possibility of the deceased being put to death by some one else and a false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.
20. It was further submitted that at the first stage of occurrence, the case of the prosecution is that A.4 had stabbed the deceased on his back whereas no such injury has been found in the post mortem certificate Ex.P.6.
21. Next, it was submitted that it is the case of the prosecution witnesses that when P.W.1 went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint, her son P.W.2 and her brother P.W.3 had also gone along with her. But they remained outside the Police Station. It was submitted that this is not believable since P.W.2 and P.W.3 are persons who are involved in many litigation and experienced in these matters and therefore, the natural course of human conduct would be for them to accompany P.W.1 into the Police Station and they would have witnessed Ex.P.1. On the other hand, there is no witness to the complaint.
22. It was submitted that the investigating Officer P.W.12 had clearly stated that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not at the Police Station at the time of lodging of the complaint.
23. It was submitted that the occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m., and if so, the delay of 2 . hours in lodging the complaint deserves to be explained. There was also a delay in despatch of the First Information Report to the Court. There was enmity between the two parties and therefore, even if there was actually a motive, it could cut both ways and therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
24. It was also submitted that the time of death as fixed by the post mortem Doctor at 20.00 to 24 hours prior to autopsy would clearly prove the case of the prosecution was false.
25. It was submitted that all the accused excluding A.2 were related. A.2 is a stranger to the family. Apart from a mention of his name that he was armed with a weapon, no witness attributed any overt act to him and therefore, he has unnecessarily been roped in and absolutely there is no evidence to implicate him in the offence.
26. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that it cannot be denied that there was ill feeling between the two groups. But whether the motive was weak or otherwise would pale into insignificance when there is the strong evidence of the eye witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is nothing in Ex.P.1 to indicate that the signature had been obtained first and the contents had been filled in. On the other hand, the script in Ex.P.1 is smooth flowing. The only words which are written in small script is what is written by the Police Officer who has recorded the complaint and registered a case and that cannot in any way cause suspicion of Ex.P.1.
27. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as regards the eye witnesses P.W.1 has spoken of the entire occurrence. They had all gone from Veeravanallur to Harikesavanallur and at the Pillaiyar Koil. P.W.1 and P.W.2 with her son got out of the auto, P.W.3 and the deceased got out of the bike. The accused came with the weapons and the deceased/accused also came with a match box. They surrounded them and the deceased/accused open the petrol tank in the motor bike and set fire to the motor bike. Thereafter, they ran in various directions. P.W.1 followed her son the deceased to the nearby paddy field. There, the seven accused surrounded the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 had spoken about the specific overt acts and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted on the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 had spoken of the first stage of the occurrence. In consonance with the evidence of P.W.1 who had stated that after the first part of the occurrence, all the four scattered in various directions, P.W.2 and P.W.3 do not speak of what happened thereafter because, they ran away in different directions. Thereafter, according to P.W.2, P.W.1 informed him about what happened. The learned Public Prosecutor would state that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 to disbelieve her and all other questions are not material when the evidence of the eye witnesses is totally believable.
28. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the character of the deceased is not relevant to decide the guilt of the accused.
29. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the distinction between the incised wound and the open wound cannot be made especially in view of the evidence of the post mortem Doctor P.W.7 who has stated that the injuries could have been caused by sharp weapons like bill hook. She had clarified it by saying that it could be caused by any kind of sharp weapons including axe, aruval, bill hook and kandakodari. She had also stated that even the width of the injury can increase depending on the manner in which the injury is inflicted. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor this objection cannot be accepted.
30. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay is clearly explained by P.W.10 the Head Constable who had stated that all the buses plying from Tirunelveli to Nagercoil which passed their Police Station were not plying because of the murder that took place on the road. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the time of death as spoken to by the Doctor does not in any way militate against the case of the prosecution. As regards the defence on behalf of A.2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that according to P.W.1, all the seven accused surrounded the deceased and inflicted on the back and therefore, there is no justification for excluding A.2.
31. We have carefully considered all the materials available on record.
32. P.W.2 was married to the daughter of the deceased accused Jayalakshmi. When P.W.2's wife was pregnant, P.W.2 approached the deceased accused for an alliance between his younger brother the deceased Shankar and Gomathi his wife's sister, the deceased/accused and A.1 and their other relatives refused. According to the prosecution, this is a motive for the ill- feeling between the two groups. The question whether this motive is sufficient to justify the conduct does not really concern us, if we are convinced by the evidence of P.W.1.
33. First we will look at the evidence of P.W.1. In Ex.P.1, she had spoken of the attack in her evidence she had given the details of the attack. It is hardly a fault if the complaint does not give all the minute details. In fact, an over detailed complaint may itself arouse suspicion. As regards the first part of the occurrence, P.W.1's evidence is corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Further, Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar refer to the burnt Bullet cycle. So, the first part is satisfactorily proved. As far as the second stage is concerned, P.W.1's evidence is she ran away following her son deceased. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also corroborates that. In front of her eyes, the occurrence took place and she had given the complaint soon thereafter. We find nothing suspicious about her evidence. Her testimony is believable.
34. Next, we will see if there is any delay in lodging Ex.P.1. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and according to her, when she, accompanied by her two sons and her brother reached Harikesavanallur between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m., there was this assault on her son and thereafter, the accused party gave them the chase, then surrounded the deceased and murdered him in the field. Therefore, it is clear that the entire occurrence did not take place in a split second. There was the first part which took place on the road. There was the threat by the accused party. Then A.8 set fire to the bike. There was the chase. Then the attack. In those circumstances, it is quite natural that there is some time lapse before the Ex.P.1 was lodged at 8.00 p.m. We do not think there is any material delay.
35. Next, we will look at the evidence regarding lodging of complaint and the credibility of Ex.P.1 itself. P.W.1 has clearly stated that when she went to lodge Ex.P.1, her brother P.W.3 and her son P.W.2 had gone with her and then they stayed outside the Police Station. P.W.2 and P.W.3 corroborate their evidence in this aspect. P.W.11's evidence does not really contradict this. P.W.11 stated P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not come to the Police Station and did not stand outside. P.W.11 could not have known who stood outside, he can only know whether the two came inside. It is quite natural that P.W.2 and P.W.3 with their criminal record preferred to stay outside the Police premises. When we see Ex.P.1 the complaint, we do not think that it is a complaint written on a previously signed paper. The flow of words is quite natural and evenly spaced. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is only where the Police Officer had written that it is in a small script but in so far as the complaint itself is concerned there is nothing to arouse disbelief.
36. As regards the delay of despatching the First Information Report, the First Information Report was handed over to Murugaiya P.W.10 only at 9.00 p.m., on 19/8/1996. He would state that there was no facility on account of the gruesome murder that took place in the locality. He had to go 14 kilo meters from the Police Station. Firstly, the printed First Information Report has been received by him during night hours. Secondly, he has come out with an acceptable explanation that on account of lack of bus facilities, he was not in a position to travel to the Court for the purpose of handing over the First Information Report. He has also given some explanation that the vehicles meant for the use of the Police Station were also taken to the scene of occurrence by the Inspector of Police. Therefore, we find that delay in despatching the First Information Report has been properly explained by the prosecution.
37. Next we come to the conduct of P.W.1 the mother. She had not lifted the body of the deceased, who was her own son. This is commented as unnatural. We do not think that much turns on this feature. When all the seven accused were armed with deadly weapons and had strong ill-feeling against the prosecution party, P.W.1 the mother is not likely to remain for long in the field with her deceased son making herself vulnerable to further assault. It is quite acceptable that she came away without lifting the deceased and we do not think there is any unnatural in her conduct.
38. The so called discrepancy between the time of occurrence as spoken to by the Post mortem Doctor and the actual time of occurrence, we does not merit any acceptance. The post-mortem Doctor commenced the autopsy at 11.30 a.m. This was about 17 1/2 to 18 hours after the occurrence. P.W.6 the Doctor fixed the occurrence at 20 - 24 hours prior to the Post-mortem and had also stated that it could even be 2 hours earlier. So, this is not a weakness in the prosecution case.
39. As regards the submission that because of the criminal antecedents of the deceased, he could have been done to death by other adversaries, it may be accepted if such strong ocular testimony is not there and the prosecution had relied on only circumstantial evidence. But here, there is direct evidence before us and therefore, we must rule out false implication.
40. Now, we finally come to the question whether A.2 was involved in the offence. The two eye witnesses namely P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 speak of the presence of A.2 only at the first stage of occurrence. According to P.W.2, A.1 and A.2 with aruval in hand came from the south and shouted "why do you come to a street, run away". P.W.3 has repeated the same facts. As far as these two witnesses are concerned, we must remember that they had seen only the first stage of occurrence that is what was happened on the street. They are not witnesses to what happened in the fields. P.W.1 is the eye witness to the entire occurrence. According to her also, at the first stage, A.1 came with an Aruval in his hand and thereafter, at the first stage according to her, P.W.4 stabbed the deceased that resulted in the flight of the deceased away from the first scene of occurrence to the field which is the second scene of occurrence, P.W.1 followed him and apart from stating that all the seven surrounded her son, when we come to her narration of the overacts, we see that she has not mentioned A.2 at all. A.2 is also not related. The prosecution has not shown that there was some motive for A.2 to participate in the occurrence. A.4 to A.7 are brothers. A.3 is the brother in law of A.4. A.1 is the maternal uncle of A.3. A.8 who died is the mother of A.4 to A.7. Therefore, all the accused were related to each other except A.2. We find that there is no evidence to connect A.2 with the offence. Apart from the mere mention that he appeared on the scene with the aruval, there is nothing else to link him with the offence.
41. 1980 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRIMINAL) - 985 (MARUDANAL AUGUSTI Vs. STATE OF KERALA) was relied on to show the effect of a fabricated First Information Report. But we have found that F.I.R deserves acceptance.
42. A final attempt was made to invoke the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act in favour of A.3 Janakaran. Pending appeal, the report of the Additional Sessions Judge was called for to ascertain his age on the date of the offence. The report dated 8/2/2008 is before us. It shows that, on the date of the occurrence i.e., 19/8/1996, A.3 was 17 years old. "The striking distinction between the 1986 Act and the 2000 Act is that under the 1986 Act, a Juvenile means a male juvenile who has not attained the age of 16 years. The limit of 16 years in the 1986 Act has been raised to 18 years in the 2000 Act"
{vide (PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND) 2005 (3) SCC - 551}. The occurrence is when the 1986 Act was in force. A.3 had completed 16 years. The Supreme Court also held in the above case that the 2000 Act would be applicable to these cases initiated and pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the 1980 Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1/4/2001. A.3 who was 17 years in 1996, would be 22 in 2001. So, the Protection of 2000 Act cannot be given either. So, this objection is rejected.
43. Under these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons while confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court with regard to A.1, A.3 to A.7, we set aside the conviction of A.2 and acquit him.
44. In the result,
(i). Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2007 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/second accused by the judgment dated 25/6/2007 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli in S.C.NO.61 of 1999 is set aside. The appellant/ second accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The appellant/second accused is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
(ii). Criminal Appeal Nos.427 and 647 are dismissed and the sentences and conviction imposed on A.1 and A.3 to A.7 are confirmed.
mvs.
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-I, Tirunelveli
2.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur P.S., Tirunelveli District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.