Madras High Court
Selvam @ R.P.Selvaraj vs The State Rep.By on 5 December, 2017
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 05.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI CRL.A.No.234/2017 Selvam @ R.P.Selvaraj .. Appellant/Sole Accused Versus The State rep.by The Inspector of Police Peelamedu Police Station Coimbatore District. [Crime No.778/2015] .. Respondent / Complainant Prayer:- Appeal filed under section 374 Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional District and Sesssions Judge, Trial of Bomb Blast Court Cases [FAC], Coimbatore, vide Judgment dated 21.03.2017 in SC.No.190/2016. For Appellant : Mr.Philip Ravindran Jesudoss For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran, GA [Crl.Side] JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.190/2016 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trial of Bomb Blast Court Cases [FAC], Coimbatore. He stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC. The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 21.03.2017, has convicted the appellant / accused for the commission of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with a default sentence to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
2 The facts, briefly narrated and necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows:-
2.1 The appellant / accused was working under P.W.3 Tamilarasan, in his lathe workshop, viz., "Tamilmani Workshop and was residing in a portion of the building bearing Door.No.104, Daskand Nagar, Coimbatore, which belong to the father of P.W.1 for rent. The wife of the appellant/accused was residing along with her child at Metalla, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. The prosecution further alleges that the appellant / accused came into contact with the deceased Sathya through a missed call and thereafter, both of them developed acquaintance and she was working as a housekeeper in a Ladies Hostel at Chennai.
2.2 On 12.11.2015, the deceased Sathya came to Coimbatore and called the appellant/accused and he took her to his house and both had stayed in the house for some time. On 16.11.2015, Sathya insisted the appellant/accused to marry her and started pestering him and since he was adamant, Sathya had attacked him with mupfuz;o [ladle] and as a consequence, the appellant/accused got enraged and he hit the deceased and thereafter, the deceased questioned him as to why is he attacking her after enjoying her and also threatened him that if he do not marry her, she would expose him and would also lodge a police complaint and thereby, defame him. The appellant/accused got enraged over the same and he took a decision to do away her and accordingly, on 17.11.2015, at about 02.15 hours, he took a hammer [M.O.3] and attacked her on her right chest and when she made an attempt to raise alarm, he closed her mouth and dashed her head on the wall and when she fell down, he put a Pillow [M.O.1] and smothered her and also strangled her and on account of the same, she died on the spot.
2.3 P.W.1-Vijay is the son of the landlord of the premises in which the appellant/accused was residing in a portion and according to him, P.W.10-Ranjithkumar, who was also a tenant under the father of P.W.1, had informed P.w.2-Kesavan who was running a grocery shop in yet another portion of the same premises about the emanation of a foul smell from the portion which was rented out in favour of the appellant/accused as well as flying of the flies around the said portion and P.W.2, in turn had informed the same to the father of P.W.1 and P.W.1;s father, in turn had called P.W.1 over telephone and asked him to make enquiry of the same and accordingly, P.W.1 went to the premises. On 19.11.2015, when P.W.1 went near the house, he smelled a foul smell and thereafter, he went to the workshop of P.W.3 under whom the appellant/accused was employed and he made enquiries with P.W.3 and one Ravi. P.W.3 tried to contact the appellant/accused through mobile phone and it was in switched off condition and thereafter, he contacted the wife of the appellant/accused and she told him that she along with her child is in Metalla, Rasipuram, and that her husband did not come there.
Thereafter, P.W.1 along with P.W.3, P.W.4 and Ravi proceeded to the portion of the house in which the appellant/accused was residing and broke open the lock and they went inside and ner the kitchen, they found the body of a female in a semi-naked condition and further, blood was oozing from her head and her mouth was closed with a piece of nighty cloth [M.O.4] and a Nylon Saree [M.O.9] was also found nearby and they also found a cut gas cylinder tube [M.O.2]. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to Peelamedu Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.12-Jeevarathinam the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said police station.
2.4 P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station at the relevant point of time, on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.778/2015 for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC at about 15.45 hours on 19.11.2015. The Printed FIR is marked as Ex.P.12. He despatched the original complaint and the FIR to the higher officials for further investigation.
2.5 P.W.13-Gopi, was the Station House Officer of the respondent Police Station and on receipt of the FIR at about 16.15 hours on 19.11.2015, proceeded to the scene of crime and in the presence of P.w.5-Kittusamy and one Vijaypandian, had prepared the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch which are marked as Exs.P.5 and 13 respectively. At about 17.45 hours, he recovered the blood-stained nighty [M.O.4] and blood-stained mat [M.O.5] under the cover of the Mahazar [Ex.P.6]. He also summoned the services of P.W.6-Kamalahasan [Photographer]. P.W.13 also summoned the services of the Dog Squad as well as the Finger Print Expert and Scientific Assistant. P.W.13 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Panchayatdars between 18.15 hours and 20.15 hours and prepared the Inquest Report [Ex.P.14]. Since the identification of the deceased was not known, for the purpose of identification, P.W.13 sent the body to be kept in Mortuary through P.W.11-Parimalam, Grade I Constable.
2.6 In continuation of the investigation, P.W.13 examined P.Ws.1, 10, 4, 3 and others and recorded their statements u/s.161[3] Cr.P.C. P.W.13 also released the photographs in the News Dailies to know about the identification of the deceased. P.W.13 also made efforts to collect the call details of the mobile phone of the appellant/accused on 20.11.2015 and also recorded the statement of P.W.9-Raja. On 21.11.2015, to know the cause of the death of the deceased P.W.13 made a requisition for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased.
2.7 P.W.8-Dr.Jeyasingh, was the District Police Surgeon and Associate Professor in the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine attached to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at the relevant point of time. P.W.8, on receipt of the requisition along with the body at about 14.55 p.m. on 21.11.2015, found decomposed stage all over the body and commenced the postmortem at about 15.00 hours and noted the following features:-
The following ante mortem injuries noted over the body:-
Reddish contusion 5x3 cm noted over inner aspect of left elbow and 3x3 cm noted over inner aspect of right leg in its medial 3rd Upper incisor and lower part of right central incisor found fractured and disarticulated. On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: sub scalpel contusion reddish in colour 4x3 cm noted over left forehead and 4x3 cm noted over right parietal region. Brain found liquefied with blood tinges seen over surface of the meninges. On dissection of thorax and abdomen:Right side ribs 3rd to 7th found fractured along with para vertebral line with surrounding tissue contusion reddish in colour. On dissection of neck: Reddish contusion 10x2 cm noted over front and both side neck muscle. Right side hyoid bone found fractured in is junction between greater horn and body with surrounding tissue contusion reddish in colour. Thyroid cartilage found fractured in its middle with surrounding tissue contusion reddish colour.
Other findings:-
Peritoneal and Pleural cavities empty.
Heart-Flabby. Cut section decomposed.
Stomach contains about 10 ml of decomposed fluid with smell of decomposition, mucosa decomposed.
Small intestine contains about 10 ml of decomposed fluid with smell of decomposition, mucosa decomposed.
Liver, Spllen Kidnyes and Lungs cut section decomposed.
Urinary bladder-empty Uterus:cut section decomposed. The vaginal swab was also collected for analysis and P.W.8, after the conclusion of the postmortem, has given the final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of violent compression of the neck associated with multiple injuries. The death would have occurred 4 to 5 days prior to autopsy. The Postmortem Certificate is marked as Ex.P.8.
2.8 P.W.13, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of his investigation, seized M.O.7-blood-stained blouse ; M.O.8-blood-stained in-skirt and M.O.9-blood-stained saree under Form 95 and thereafter, made a search for the accused and effected his arrest on 24.11.2015 at Karur Bus Stand at about 06.00 hours in the presence of P.W.4 and Ravi. The appellant/accused came forward to give a voluntary confession statement in the presence of the said witnesses, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.2. The appellant / accused told the name of the deceased as Sathya and further told that he will identify the place wherein the deceased was murdered as well as the Pillows [M.O.1] and the hammer [M.O.3] used for the commission of the offence of murder. P.W.13 came to know that the deceased belonged to Meenatchipuram, Bodi Taluk, Theni District and was the daughter of one Perumal.
2.9 At about 11.30 hours on 24.11.2015, pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement, P.W.13 recovered M.O.1 [Pillows-2] and at about 12.15 hours, he recovered M.O.3 [Hammer] from a thorny bush behind the Transformer located opposite to Kovai Goldwins Kumaran Steel Company. Thereafter, he took the accused to the Police station and sent him for judicial remand. P.W.13 examined P.w.4-Loganathan and Ravi and recorded their statements and also examined P.Ws.1, 10, 3 and 2 and recorded their further statements. On 25.11.2015, P.W.13 examined the relatives of the deceased Sathya, viz., Bommulu-brother of the deceased, P.W.7-Jalamani and one Lakshmi, elder sisters of the deceased and recorded their statements. They identified the cloth worn by the deceased as well as the body of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.13 handed over the body of the deceased to her relatives for cremation. P.W.13 once again examined P.W.9-Raja and recorded his statement. On 20.12.2015, he recorded the statement of P.W.11-Kamalahasan [Photographer]. After the receipt of the Postmortem Certificate [Ex.P.8], he examined the doctor P.W.8 who had conducted the autopsy and recorded his statement and on 20.01.2016, he examined P.W.12-the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the FIR as well as one Shankar Ganesh and after the conclusion of the investigation, laid the charge sheet/final report on 30.01.2016 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, who took it on file in PRC.No.12/2016. The Committal Court had summoned the accused and furnished him with the copies of the documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C., and having found that the case is exclusively tried by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore and the said Court, in turn, had made over the case to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trial of Bomb Blast Court Cases [FAC], Coimbatore, who took it on file in SC.No.190/2016.
2.10 The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to 15 as well as M.Os.1 to 9.
2.11 The accused was questioned under section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidences rendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false. The accused did not file any documents nor let in any oral evidence.
2.12 The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had convicted the appellant/accused for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine adn default sentence. Challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.
3 Mr.Philip Ravindran Jesudoss, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused would submit that the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and the following circumstances are projected by the prosecution to connect the appellant / accused with the commission of the crime:
The motive to do away with the life of the deceased on the ground that she pestered him to marry her and since he refused, she threatened that she would expose him and also to lodge a police complaint.
The last seen theory spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
The recovery of incriminating articles pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant / accused.
The call details [Ex.P.15] pertain to the mobile phone of the appellant / accused.
4 The learned counsel for the appellant / accused made the following submissions:-
1.There is no evidence to show that the appellant / accused was residing in a portion owned by the father of P.W.1 for the reason that the owner of the house, viz., the father of P.W.1, was not examined as a witness and that apart, no documents whatsoever, have been exhibited to show that the appellant / accused was a tenant in the house of the father of P.W.1.
2.The Last Seen Theory spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 cannot be believed for the reason that they have not specifically identified the deceased while she was in the company of the appellant / accused and therefore, their testimonies did not corroborate with each other on material particulars.
3.The alleged confession and recovery of the material objects also cannot be believed for the reason that one of the witnesses to the arrest and recovery, viz., P.W.9-Raja, had turned hostile and the scientific evidence in the form of Postmortem Certificate [Ex.P.8] is also not clear.
4.With regard to the furnishing of the call details of the appellant / accused [9976645022] as well as that of the deceased Sathya [9176713893] to strengthen its case by the prosecution, the same suffers infirmity as the said details does not indicate the name of the respective Service Providers nor the employees of the said Service Providers were examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case and as such, the ingredients of section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have not been attracted.
5 Alternately, it is pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused that even as per the charge framed by the prosecution, initially the provocation was given by the deceased Sathya by attacking the appellant / accused with mupfuz;o [ladle] and followed by a wordy altercation and the appellant / accused, in a heat of passion, has committed the offence and therefore, prays for alteration of conviction and reduction of sentence of imprisonment of life.
6 Per contra, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the State would submit that the prosecution, through the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused was seen in the company of the deceased Sathya and therefore, under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was within the special knowledge of the appellant / accused to explain the said fact and even in his questioning u/s.313[1][b] Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances, he merely denied it as false and that may be one of the adding circumstance / link to connect him with the commission of the offence. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] that the personal belongings of the deceased Sathya as well as the body was also identified by one of her sisters, viz., P.W.7-Jaalamani and that apart, the testimony of P.W.8-doctor and the Postmortem Certificate issued by him under Ex.P.8, would clearly prove the fact that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence and since the prosecution has linked the chain of circumstances connecting the appellant / accused with the commission of crime, the Trial Court, on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences, has rightly reached the conclusion to convict and sentence the appellant/accused. Insofar as the alternate plea made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] that though initially, the deceased had attacked him with mupfuz;o [ladle], the provocation cannot be so much so as to commit the heinous crime/offence of murder and hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7 This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the oral and documentary evidences and other materials placed on record including the impugned Judgment as well as the original records.
8 The following questions arise for consideration:-
[a] Whether the prosecution was able to link all the chain of circumstances which unerringly point out the guilt on the part of the appellant / accused beyond any reasonable doubt?
[b] Whether the alternate plea made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused for alteration of conviction and sentence is to be considered or not?
QUESTION NO.1 9 This Court has carefully scrutinised the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
10 According to P.W.1, who is the son of the landlord of the premises in which the appellant / accused was residing in a portion as a tenant, his father was informed by P.W.2 [P.W.2 was informed by P.W.10] about the emanation of foul smell from the said portion and he in turn had asked P.W.1 to enquire about the same and therefore, P.W.1 went to the premises in which the appellant / accused was residing and smelled a foul smell and he went to the workshop of P.W.3 employer of the appellant / accused and he made enquiries with P.W.3. P.W.3 in turn, made a phone call to the mobile phone of the appellant / accused and it was found in switched-off mode and he has further contacted the wife of the appellant / accused who also told him that the appellant / accused did not turn up. Immediately, they broke open the lock and went inside and found the body of the deceased in a semi-naked condition with blood oozing from the frontal portion of the head and a nighty was also inserted in her mouth and a piece of gas tube was also found nearby and thereafter, P.w.1 proceeded to the jurisdictional Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 would depose that the appellant / accused was introduced by P.W.3 and later one, he became the tenant and he denied the suggestion that he did not know the appellant / accused at all and that he is deposing falsely.
11 P.W.2 would depose that he know the accused and he was running a grocery shop in a portion of the house which was owned by his father and on 12.11.2015 at about 9.00 p.m., a woman came to his shop to purchase vegetables and on the next day, he asked the appellant / accused about the identity of the said woman and he told that she is his relative. P.W.2 came to know that from 17.11.2015 onwards, the portion in which the appellant / accused was residing, was found in a locked condition and P.W.10 also told him about the emanation of foul smell from the said portion and thereafter, he only contacted the father of P.W.1 about the same. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has denied the suggestions put to him on behalf of the appellant / accused.
12 P.W.3 would also depose that he knew the appellant / accused and through his distant relative, he joined his Lathe workshop as an employee and he was residing in a portion of the house which lies behind his residential premises and some time thereafter, he tried to contact the appellant / accused over phone and it was found in switched-off condition. Two days thereafter, P.w.1 came and made enquiry and thereafter, all of them went and broke open the lock and found the dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 would depose that apart from the appellant / accused, two other persons were also employed under him and he is not maintaining the Attendance Register and denied the suggestion that no such occurrence took place.
13 P.W.4 in his deposition, had stated that he knew the appellant / accused and he was employed in the Lathe shop run by P.W.3 and insofar as the emanation of foul smell and breaking open of the lock of the premises, his testimony corroborates with the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3.
14 P.W.5 would also depose that the appellant / accused was residing in the portion of the premises and he also corroborates the versions of P.Ws.1 to 4.
15 P.W.9, in his chief-examination would depose that he has seen the accused and the persons employed in his Bakery, were staying adjacent to the house of the appellant / accused and since he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness. But the fact remains that he has also deposed about the staying of the appellant / accused in the said portion.
16 P.W.10 would depose that the appellant / accused was staying adjacent to his premises and when he came for lunch on 19.11.2015, he smelt a foul smell and immediately, he informed P.W.2-Kesavan, owner of the Grocery shop and since he did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness and was cross-examined by the prosecution.
17 As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side], the prosecution was able to prove that the appellant/accused was staying in the portion of the house rented out by the father of P.W.1 through the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. Though P.Ws.9 and 10 were treated as hostile witnesses, their portion of testimonies also supports the prosecution case as to the staying of the appellant / accused in the said house.
18 Insofar as the motive aspect is concerned, the deceased Sathya pestered the appellant / accused to marry her and it was acceded to and she developed anger and hit the appellant / accused with mupfuz;o [ladle] and enraged by the same, the appellant / accused retarded by attacking her with hammer [M.O.3] initially and thereafter, strangulated her and she died due to asphyxia.
19 As far as the arrest and recovery is concerned, the prosecution through the admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant / accused under Ex.P.2, had also recovered the incriminating materials and though the concerned witness had turned hostile, the seizure aspect has also been spoken to by P.W.13-the Investigating Officer and this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the arrest and recovery. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution was able to prove the chain of circumstances which unerringly point out the guilt on the part of the appellant / accused.
20 It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant / accused as regards the call details marked as Ex.P.15 series, which is also projected as one of the circumstances against the appellant / accused, the ingredients of section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have not at all been followed. It is relevant to extract section 65-B [1] and [2] of the said Act:
65-B Admisiibility of Electronic Records:-
[1] Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer [hereinafter referred to as the computer output] shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
[2] The conditions referred to in sub-section [1] in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely -
[a] the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer ;
[b] during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities ;
[c] throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents ; and [d] the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. 21 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision reported in 2015 [7] SCC 178 [Tomaso Bruno V. State of Uttar Pradesh], has held that the said provision makes admissible as a document, paper print out of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub-section [2] of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. In the case on hand, the prosecution has merely marked Ex.P.15 series without fulfilling the said conditions and in support of Ex.P.15, no oral evidence has been let in and the Investigating Officer P.W.13, has also not clearly spoken about the said document and as such, it cannot be taken as one of the circumstances against the appellant / accused. Even otherwise, other circumstances pointed out would lead to the only conclusion as to the connecting link of the appellant / accused with the commission of the crime.
22 It is a well settled position of law that for conviction on circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be fulfilled:-
1.The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established ;
2.The facts so established should be consistent not only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty ;
3.The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency ;
4.They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved ;
5.There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
23 Since the prosecution had proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, connecting the appellant / accused with the commission of the crime, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for convicting the accused.
Thus, Question No.1 is answered accordingly.
QUESTION No.2:-
24 Even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, it was the deceased who provoked the appellant / accused by asking him to marry her and it was refused by him and she went on pestering him and attacked him with mupfuz;o [ladle] on his back and thereafter, the appellant / accused got enraged and committed the murder of the deceased Sathya. The charge framed by the Trial Court against the appellant / accused would also proceed on that basis.
25 In the considered opinion of the Court, in the light of the provocation given by the deceased verbally followed by physical attack, the act of the appellant / accused falls within the Exception [4] to Section 300 IPC. However, the appellant / accused had the intention to cause such a bodily injury as is likely to cause the death on account of the fact that he strangulated her and as a result, she died of asphyxia and therefore, the offence committed by the appellant / accused is punishable under section 304 [Part I] IPC.
26 In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / accused for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trial of Bomb Blast Court Cases [FAC], Coimbatore, vide impugned judgment dated 21.03.2017 in SC.No.190/2016 is modified and in stead, he is convicted for the commission of the offence u/s.304 [Part I] IPC and is sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine with the default sentence imposed by the Trial Court is maintained. The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant / accused is given set-off u/s.428 Cr.P.C.
[M.S.N., J.] [S.P.I., J.]
5th December 2017
Internet : Yes
AP
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Trial of Bomb Blast Court Cases [FAC],
Coimbatore.
2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge
Coimbatore.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI
Coimbatore.
4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Peelamedu Police Station
Coimbatore District.
6.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
7.The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chennai-4.
8.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District.
9.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI, J.,
AP
Crl.A.No.234/2017
05.12.2017