Madras High Court
S.Sivagnanam vs The State Represented By on 1 August, 2023
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 01.08.2023
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016
S.Sivagnanam .. Appellant/Sole Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thazhambur Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
(Crime No.11 of 2002) .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C to set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/Sole Appellant/Accused
in S.C.No.134 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge of
Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, dated 02.09.2016.
For Appellant .. Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy
and Mr.K.Ethirajalu
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent .. Mrs.G.V.Kashthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The Appellant/Accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.134 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, dated 02.09.2016.
2.The brief facts which are necessary to decide this Appeal are as follows:
2.1.The victim/Complainant belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar community. The Appellant/Accused belongs to Hindu Yadava community.
Four months prior to 06.01.2002, the Appellant/Accused fell in love with the Victim/Complainant aged about 19 years and also had sexual intercourse with her by saying “vdf;F 12 yl;r Ugha; brhj;J cs;sJ/ vd;id jpUkzk; bra;jhy; uhzp khjpup thHyhk;/ ehd;jhd; cd;id fy;ahzk; bra;J bfhs;s nghfpnwnd eP gag;glhnj/” Believing the words the victim had sexual intercourse and become pregnant. Later, the Appellant/Accused refused to marry her stating that she is Scheduled caste. Hence the Deputy 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram has filed charge sheet U/s 376, 417 IPC r/w 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Chengalpattu took up the charge sheet on his file as P. R. C No. 34/2002. After furnishing the copies of records relied on by the Prosecution to the Appellant/Accused as per the provisions of Sec. 207 of Cr. P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Chengalpattu has committed the case to the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu u/s. 209 of Cr.P.C., since the offence U/s. 376, 417 IPC r/w 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu took up the case as S.C.No.134/2005. After perusing the records and hearing the arguments of both sides, since prima facie case was made out against the Appellant/Accused, the trial Judge had framed charges U/s 376, 417 IPC r/w 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Appellant/Accused.
3/26https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 2.2. To prove the guilt of the Appellant/Accused, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W-12 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-
13. No Material Object has been marked. No witness was examined and no exhibits have been marked.
2.3.On considering the rival submission of both sides and on persual of the evidence and documents, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had found the Accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and the Appellant/Accused was Convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence U/s.417 I.P.C. He also directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ towards compensation U/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. The period of already undergone is ordered to be set off U/s 428 Cr.P.C. The Appellant/Accused found not guilty for an offences U/s.376 IPC and 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and acquitted from the said charges. The amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid to the victim.
4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the Accused, this Criminal Appeal had been filed.
3.The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.134 of 2005 is perverse as the offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted as per the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the charges framed against the Appellant/Accused at the commencement of the trial under Sections 376, 417 of IPC read with 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4.After completion of the trial and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judge had acquitted the Appellant/Accused under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and had convicted the Appellant/Accused for offence 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 under Section 417 of IPC, imposing sentence of imprisonment and compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to be paid to the victim.
5.The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to attract Section 417 of IPC. In this case, no such materials are available from the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses. Also, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the Medical Certificate under Ex.P-13. The Doctor P.W-12, who had examined the Complainant/victim had taken advantage of the notes made on the Accident Register as“alleged to have had relationship with a known person for the past one year”.
6.The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per the charge sheet, from 06.01.2002 the Appellant was alleged to have been in a relationship with the victim/Complainant. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to para 17 of the judgment and to the evidence of the Investigation Officer that the Doctor Certificate 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 was not marked through the Doctor but was marked through the Investigation Officer, which was objected by the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused before the Trial Court.
7.The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the observation of the learned Trial Judge that the Appellant/Accused had not subjected himself to DNA test and had drawn adverse inference. Learned Counsel submitted that the victim/Complainant in this case has moved Crl.O.P.No.36969 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 16.02.2010 with the following observations:
“13.However, in the circumstances of the case, it would be open for the trial Court to consider whether the conduct of a DNA test would serve the interest of justice. DNA testing has been found to be scientifically accurate. Of course, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that requiring the Appellant/Accused to submit himself to a DNA test would amount to testimonial compulsion. The constitutional Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 Supreme Court Cases 1808 has held as follows:
"(16)In view of these considerations, we have come to the following conclusions:-
(1)An Appellant/Accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more. In other 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 words, the mere fact of being in police custody at the time when the statement in question was made would not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to the inference that the Appellant/Accused was compelled to make the statement, though that fact, in conjunction with other circumstances disclosed in evidence in a particular case, would be a relevant consideration in an enquiry whether or not the Appellant/Accused person had been compelled to make the impugned statement.
(2)The mere questioning of an Appellant/Accused person by a police officer, resulting in a voluntary statement, which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not 'compulsion'.
(3)'To be a witness' is not equivalent to 'furnishing evidence' in its widest significance; that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statements but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the Appellant/Accused.
(4)Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showings parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'. (5)'To be a witness' means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a statement in writing, made or given in Court or otherwise.
(6)'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case law has gone beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in Court or out of Court by a person Appellant/Accused of an offence, orally or in writing. (7)To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Art.20(3), the person Appellant/Accused must have stood in the character of an Appellant/Accused person at the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he should become an Appellant/Accused, any time after the statement has been made."
Thus, the position is quite clear that requiring an Appellant/Accused to submit himself to a DNA test would not amount to testimonial compulsion. The above observations are not 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 meant to impose any particular conduct on the trial Court and the lower Court will deal with the case on merits.”
8.In the light of the reported ruling in S.Vidhya -vs- State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram, Kancheepuram and others reported in 2010 (2) MWN (Cr.) 263, the observation made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is to be treated as perverse. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to a reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016 [Tilak Raj -vs- The State of Himachal Pradesh] arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.4896 of 2015, dated 06.01.2016.
9.In the light of the above, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment of conviction imposed on the Appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, as it is perverse.
10.The legal Aid Counsel nominated by the Tamil Nadu Legal Aid Committee submits that apart from the submission made by the learned 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Counsel for the Appellant, in the course of trial, there was evidence before the Trial Court that there was a Panchayath convened regarding this dispute in the village before filing of complaint. In the Panchayath by the village President by name, Ethiraj, who had convened the Panchayath regarding the dispute. On that scope, the learned Judge failed to consider the materials available before the Trial Court. The Panchayath President Ethiraj was not examined as a witness by the Prosecution. There was suppression of fact by the prosecution.
11.In that Panchayath, it is stated that the prosecutrix had accepted that she had been in a consensual relationship with the Appellant/Accused. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court that at the initial stage of the registration of the case, the provisions of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not at all invoked. During the cross examination of P.W-1, she had clearly admitted that she had not stated anything regarding community in the complaint. Only in the course of the investigation, it was found out that the 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Appellant/Accused and the Complainant belong to different communities. Therefore, the Investigation Officer herself had invoked the provision of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the initial stage of the investigation forwarded the alteration report invoking provisions of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Later on, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation after the alteration of the charge, invoking the provisions of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Investigation Officer, in her cross examination, submitted that the Appellant/Accused did not have the intention of cheating. He had taken the marriage proposal into consideration. Therefore, the provision of 415 IPC is not accepted. In the light of the cross examination of P.W-1 and the conviction of the Appellant/Accused under 417 of IPC by the learned Judge is to be treated as perverse and the same is to be set aside.
12.The learned Counsel for the Appellant also invited the attention of this Court to the second provision of Section 417 of IPC. If this Court considers the Appeal lacks merit, then the second provision may be 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 considered.
13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent vehemently objected to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant stating that earlier order of this Court dated 26.04.2023, stated that the Police were directed to secure the Appellant/Accused and produced him before this Court on 08.06.2023, and had appointed Legal Aid Counsel to proceed with the Appeal on 08.06.2023. When the Station House Officer of the Respondent Police Station visited the address mentioned in the charge sheet and in the judgment, it was found that the Appellant/Accused had shifted his residence and his whereabouts is not known in the village. Therefore, the Station House Officer had obtained certificate from the Village Administrative Officer. The Respondent Police was unable to secure the Appellant/Accused because of the conduct of the Appellant/Accused in shifting his residence and not informing the Respondent Police. Also, in the facts of this case, when the Trial Court convicted the Appellant/Accused and imposed compensation, the 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 compensation amount had to be paid. Here is the case, the Appellant/Accused had paid Rs.75,000/- only out of Rs.3 lakhs ordered as compensation but had not paid the entire compensation all these years. Only Rs.75,000/- is remaining in the Court deposit of the learned Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
14.Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent and perused the documents.
15.On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the evidence and the documents, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot at all be accepted in the light of the evidence of the Prosecutrix P.W-1. The Appellant herein had physical intimacy with the Prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her. When she informed the Appellant that she is four months pregnant, the Appellant stopped visiting the Prosecutrix. The repeated request of the Prosecutrix did not help her. 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Therefore, she was forced to file complaint. Based on which, FIR was registered. She had fairly conceded in her cross-examination that in her complaint, she did not mention about the caste or discrimination based upon caste to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
16.In the ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in S.Vidhya -vs- State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram, Kancheepuram and others reported in 2010 (2) MWN (Cr.) 263, the observation of the learned Judge of this Court that the Petitioner has the liberty to approach the trial Court. But had not exercised that option will not go against the Prosecutrix or in favour of the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the defence of the Appellant/Accused/Appellant during trial that the Prosecutrix had physical relationship with Anandan, Siva, Ravi and with her own paternal uncle. If that be so, the Appellant need not have second opinion. He could have very well subjected himself to DNA Test but he had 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 not done so. The Appellant who is alleged to have had physical relationship with the Prosecutrix had stopped visiting her after she informed him that she was four months pregnant. In the course of cross-examination she had clearly stated in Tamil that the Appellant/Accused touched her and she had begotten a child, by the time the trial came before the Court, the child was 5 years old. Therefore, she was waiting to marry her. That part of evidence of a woman cannot be rejected by any Court. After having relationship with a woman resulting in sexual intercourse and cheating the very same woman claiming that she is immoral cannot be accepted and appreciated by any court of law. By promising to marry a woman, a man makes her believe that he will marry her and after having intercourse with her, when she developed pregnancy he cheating her and then claiming that she is immoral cannot be appreciated by any Court of law. If it is so, she is to be branded as prostitute. If she is to be branded as prostitute, the man who had intercourse with her accepts that he had relationship with her. If he denies that there is no relationship with her, he need not fear for subjecting himself to DNA test. Here in this case, he had taken time to marry her as per the evidence of the 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Investigation Officer – P.W-11 Asi Ammal. Repeatedly the Appellant/Accused had been taking time. Therefore, his intention was to cheat her. In that scenario, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu cannot be faulted.
17.In the course of the argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the provision of Section 417 of IPC and to the provision of Section 415 of IPC. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Prosecutrix had not parted with anything to attract the ingredients of Section 415 cannot at all be accepted. The Appellant/Accused was attracted to the physical beauty of the Prosecutrix and if she had been immoral, she might not have come forward by filing the complaint. He had promised to marry her. A woman of normal human conduct will not subject herself to sexual intercourse with a man who has no acquaintance with her. Here the facts are that the Appellant and the Prosecutrix had been acquainted with each other. He had offered to marry her. When she refused, he promised to marry her and had intercourse. 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 When she informed that she had developed pregnancy and she is at the fourth month pregnancy, he had stopped visiting her. If the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is to be accepted she had not parted with anything cannot at all be accepted. She had parted with her reputation, self-respect which was exploited by the cunning words of the Appellant/Accused. After enjoying sex with the victim/Prosecutrix the attempt of the Appellant/Accused that he is not the father of the child and she had intercourse with several persons cannot at all be accepted. In the circumstances that when he suggests the names of several individuals having relationship with the Prosecutrix, then he ought to have subjected himself to DNA test. He did not go for that. Therefore, the learned trial Judge is within his powers as a trial Judge to draw adverse inference against the Accused/Appellant herein. Before concluding the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per the second part of Section 417 of IPC it is either sentence of imprisonment or fine. If that is to be considered, the Appellant shall pay the balance of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) before the Court of the learned 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
18.The conduct of the Appellant/Accused is not appreciated by this Court. Having suffered conviction and sentence before the trial Court, he had appealed before the High Court. On admission of the appeal, the Appellant/Accused was granted bail. This Court had directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.75,000/- and he had deposited Rs.75,000/- but he had not deposited the entire compensation amount as ordered by the trial Judge. Further, he had not prosecuted the appeal and he had absconded.
19.Therefore, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the Appellant to produce the Appellant/Accused/Appellant before this Court on 10.07.2023. On 10.07.2023, the Appellant was produced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant by 2.15 p.m. in the Chamber. The Appellant was warned that if he evades due process, directions will be issued by this Court to the Respondent Police/Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Kancheepuram District, Tambaram Commissionerate to publish the photo as 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 well as the details of the Appellant as absconding Appellant/Accused and to secure him. The Appellant/Accused was also warned that whenever he shifts his residence he is duty bound to inform the same to the Respondent Police till the disposal of this Appeal.
20.On 17.07.2023, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Appellant and the Sub Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Kancheepuram District, Tambaram Commissionerate are present in Chamber. As per the letter received by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Kancheepuram District, Tambaram Commissionerate, the Complainant states that as per the judgment, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) was imposed on the Appellant/Accused as compensation but till date, the Complainant had not received the same.
21.As per the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, even tough the trial Court directed the Appellant/Accused to deposit 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., at the time of seeking suspension of sentence, it was directed to deposit only Rs.75,000/- and the Appellant/Accused deposited only Rs.75,000/- into the Court deposit. Even after so many years, he had not paid the full amount. Before winding up the argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that after this long period if the Court is not satisfied on the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant, the Court may consider conversion of imprisonment as compensation instead of confirming the judgment of conviction.
22.In the light of the above submission, the Appellant/Accused was directed to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in S.C.No.134 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu on or before 28.07.2023.
23.In continuation of the order passed on 17.07.2023, today Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel who appeared earlier for the Appellant and Mr.K.Ethirajulu, learned Counsel for the Appellant 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 nominated by the High Court Legal Services Committee, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent, the Appellant/Accused and the Sub Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station along with CD file in Crime No.11 of 2002 are present. The learned Counsel for the Appellant deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/= (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in the Crime No.11 of 2002 before the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. He has also produced the original receipt bearing No.20/2023 dated 26.07.2023.
24.In the light of the arguments advanced by the earlier Counsel for the Appellant Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy as well as the nominated Counsel Mr.K.Ethirajulu, this Court is inclined to confirm the judgment of the trial Judge but modify the judgment instead of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu in S.C.No.134 of 2005, the offence under Section 417 of IPC for which the Appellant/Accused was convicted and for the offence under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, were 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 acquitted. The judgment of conviction under Section 417 of IPC is confirmed. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the ingredients of offence under Section 417 of IPC is not rejected and the same is confirmed in the light of the developments after the date of judgment. Considering the well-being of the Prosecutrix a report was called for by this Court through the Sub Inspector of Police, Thazhambur and she had given a statement to the Sub Inspector of Police that till date she is unmarried and she had given birth to a girl child who is now at 20 years old.
25.In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment and compensation awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu in S.C.No.134 of 2005, dated 02.09.2016 is modified as follows:
(a) Instead of confirming the judgment of conviction, it is modified as compensation to be paid to the Prosecutrix viz., a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).22/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016
(b) The period already undergone by the Appellant in remand in Crime No.11 of 2002 on the file of the Respondent Police is considered as sentence.
(c) The sentence of of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellant/Accused is treated as imprisonment.
26.As per the direction of this Court dated 17.07.2023, the Appellant had deposited the amount in S.C.No.134 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu, on 26.07.2023.
27.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu is directed to permit the Prosecutrix/Complainant in S.C.No.134 of 2005 to withdraw the entire amount viz., R.4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) available in the Court deposit. Intimation shall be sent to the Prosecutrix through the Sub Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station by issuing notice to the Prosecutrix and also assist her in withdrawing the amount from the office of 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
28.Compliance report shall be submitted to this Court by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
Call the case on 08.08.2023 for reporting compliance.
01.08.2023 cda/srm Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note: Issue order copy on 02.08.2023 To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J., cda/srm 25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 2016 Crl.A.No.688 of 2016 01.08.2023 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis