Madras High Court
Komban vs State Represented By The on 20 December, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Criminal Appeal (MD).No.96 of 2006 1.Komban 2.Thangamuthu .. Appellants/A1 & A2 vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thirunelveli Taluk Police Station, I/C Sivanthipatti Police Station, in Cr.No.50/2004 Thirunelveli District. .. Respondent Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in S.C.No.269 of 2004, dated 05.10.2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.I, Thirunelveli and set aside the same and acquit the appellants/accused of all the charges levelled against them. !For appellants ... Mr.B.Gopinath, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy ^For respondent ... Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The appellants are arrayed as A1 and A2 in S.C.No.269 of 2004 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thirunelveli. Altogether there were five accused and a total number of three charges were framed against them. The first charge was under Section 120(b) r/w 302 IPC against all the five accused. The second charge was under Section 341 IPC against the accused 1 and 2 and the third charge was under Section 302 IPC against the accused 1 and 2. The trial Court acquitted all the five accused from the charge under Section 120(b) r/w 302 IPC. Thus, the accused 3 to 5 have been acquitted. So far as these appellants/A1 & A2 are concerned, the trial Court found them guilty and convicted them accordingly for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, the trial Court has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one week and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each , in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The deceased in this case was one Allalkathan. PW1 is his wife. PW2 is his nephew and PW3 is the sister of the deceased. The deceased as well as the second accused were doing cattle business. In the said business there arouse misunderstanding between the two and as a result, they became inimical towards each other. On many previous occasions, there were wordy quarrels between the second accused and the deceased. On one occasion, the house of the second accused was attacked and damaged by the deceased. The second accused made a complaint in respect of the same to the police. The deceased and one Balan were arrested in the said case and they were in jail. After they came out from the jail, A1 and A2, on one occasion, threatened him of dire consequences.
3. While so, on 26.03.2004, at 09.00 a.m., the deceased and PW1 had gone to the house of PW13 to get some money from him. After seeing him, the deceased and PW1 were returning to their house. On their way, they went to the shop of PW10 and purchased idlies. Thereafter, they proceeded towards their house. The deceased was riding a bicycle and PW1 was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle. When they were nearing Sappani Madasamy Temple, PW2 was found. The deceased stopped the bicycle. PW2 enquired them as to where did they go in the meantime. PW1 and the deceased told her about the visit to the house of PW13. At that time, these two appellants came in a red colour motor cycle (MO10). A2 was driving the motor cycle and A1 was travelling as a pillion rider. A1 was having an aruval in his possession. A2 dashed the motor cycle against the bicycle. PW1 got down from the bicycle. Immediately, the first accused directed the second accused to cut the deceased. Accordingly, the first accused cut the deceased on the left side of his neck. On receiving the said injury, the deceased ran to a distance and fell into a godown. These accused did not stop with that. They chased him and then the first accused snatched the aruval from the second accused and cut the deceased on his hand and chest. The deceased was in a pool of blood. Both the accused fled away towards south. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs1 to 4.
4. Thereafter, PW4 informed Sivanthipatti Police over phone. PW16, was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Sivanthipatti Police Station. On 26.03.2004, at 10.00 a.m., according to him, he received the phone message from PW4 about the occurrence. He made an entry of the above message in the General Diary. Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. On his reaching the place of occurrence, PW1 made an oral complaint and the same was reduced into writing by PW16. Ex.P1 is the said complaint. On returning to the police station, at 11.30 a.m. he registered a case in Cr.No.50 of 2004 under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. Ex.P16 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P16 to the jurisdictional Magistrate, which were received by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 26.03.2004 at 04.15 p.m. Then, he handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
5.PW21, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation at 11.30 a.m. on 26.03.2004. Immediately, he proceeded to the place of occurrence at 12.15 p.m. He prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of PW8 and another witness. Ex.P25 is the observation mahazar and Ex.P26 is the rough sketch prepared showing the place of occurrence. Then, between 01.00 p.m and 03.00 p.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of pachayatdars and prepared Ex.P27, inquest report. During inquest, he examined PWs1 to 4. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.
6. PW5, doctor Adimoolam, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 26.03.2004 at 04.10 p.m. He found the following injuries:-
1) A horizontally oblique - gapping heavy cut injury - on the left side/back of neck - 22 X 7 X 9 cm. The wound starts on the left side of neck near the angle of mandible / ends on the back of neck 7 cm. below the external occipital protruberance in the midline. The injury has cut the muscles, great vessels / nerves of neck, cervical part of verterbral column - at C-6 level. The inury has completely cut the / C-6 vertebra with total transection of underlying spinal cord.
2) A vertically oblique - gapping heavy cut injury - on the front of chest/ shoulder - on the right side - 24 X 9 cm X entereing the thoracic cavity.
The upper / outer end of the injury lies 7 cm. inner to the top of right shoulder. The inner / lower end of the injury lies 4 cm. below the right nipple / 4 cm. away from the midline. The injury has cut the muscles, vessels and nerves of chest, ribs 2 to 6 - on the right side of the chest. The injury has also cut the pleura / lung along the line of wound - for a depth of 1.5 cm. The right pleural cavity contains 300 ml. of blood with clots.
3) A flapping heavy cut injury on the left palm - 12 x 6 cm x bone depth flapped upwards. The upper / outer end of the injury lies on the outer aspect of wrist. The inner / lower end of the injury lies at the base of litter finger. The injury has cut the muscles, vessels, nerves and bones of left palm along the line of wound.
Graze Abrasions: 1) front of left shoulder - 12 x 6 cm.
2) back of right upper arm - 21 x 4 cm.
3) back of right forearm - 15 x 2 cm.
4) right gluteal region - 15 x 11 cm.
5) upper part of front of right leg - 4 x 3 cm.
Ex.P4 is the postmortem certificate. He preserved the viscera parts for chemical examinations. Ex.P5 is the chemical analyst report in respect of the examination conducted on the viscera and the same has reported that there was no poison in the visceral organs. PW5 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries.
7. Continuing the investigation, PW21 recovered bloodstained earth (MO7), sample earth (MO8), green colour bicycle(MO2) and one pair of chappel (MO4) under Ex.P28 mahazar. On 26.03.2004, he examined few more witnesses and recorded the statements. On 27.03.2004, he forwarded the material objects collected from the place of occurrence to the Court.
8. In the meanwhile, the accused had surrendered before the Court. He made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli for police custody of these two accused. Accordingly, on the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, he took custody of these two accused on 31.03.2004. While they were in the police station, on 01.04.2004 at 06.00 a.m. A1 made a voluntary confession in the presence of PW12 and another witness. In the said confession, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. Ex.P30 is the said disclosure statement. On 01.04.2004, at 07.30 a.m., the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the motor cycle. Ex.P31 is his disclosure statement. At 10.30 a.m. on 01.04.2004, at Nochikulam, the first accused produced the aruval (MO9) from the hide out. PW21 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P32) in presence of some witnesses. Then, the second accused produced the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-69 Z 0632 from the hide out. PW21 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P33) in the presence of some witnesses. Then, on returning to the police station, he again produced the accused before the Court.
9. On 01.04.2004, at 07.00 p.m., PW21 arrested the accused 3 to 5 at Sethunganallore. On such arrest, all the three accused gave independent voluntary confession one after the other. Then, he brought all the three accused to the police station and then, sent them to the Court. He handed over the material objects namely the aruval and motor cycle to the Court. He examined the photographer who took photographs at the time of inquest. Then, he made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate to forward the material objects for chemical examination. Ex.P23 is the chemical analysis report. According to the same, human blood was found on MO9, aruval, as well as on the other articles namely bloodstained earth (MO5), the dress materials found on the body of the deceased etc., Ex.P24 is the serologist report. According to which, the blood found on these materials was of 'AB' group.
10. Continuing the investigation, PW21 examined the doctors and collected the medical records. On completing the investigation on 30.04.2004, he laid charge sheet against all the five accused. Based on the above materials, the trail Court framed appropriate charges. The accused pleaded innocence. Therefore, they were put on trial.
11. On the side of the prosecution as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 33 documents were marked besides, 12 material objections. Out of the said witnesses examined, PWs1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses, who have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. Though PW4 was examined as an eyewitness, he has turned hostile and his evidence is not useful for the prosecution. PW7 and 8, who were examined to speak about the conspiracy, also turned hostile. Thus, there was no evidence in respect of conspiracy at all. PW9 had spoken about the fact that he saw these two accused together with the weapon and the motor cycle just before the alleged occurrence. PW10 is the one in whose shop the deceased and PW1 had purchased idlies on their way to the home. He has also spoken to about these two accused standing somewhere near with the motor cycle and weapon.
12. PW13 has spoken to the fact that on the crucial date, before the occurrence, the deceased had come to his house for receiving money. PW12 has spoken to the arrest of both the accused and the consequential recoveries of aruval and motor cycle at their instances as detailed above. PW16 is the Sub Inspector of Police who has spoken to the registration of the case and PW5 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination and who has spoken to the cause of death and the injuries found on the deceased. PW21 has spoken to the fact relating to the investigation. The other witnesses are official witnesses.
13. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses on their side or exhibit any document.
14. Having considering the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from the first charge i.e. under Section 120(b) r/w 302 IPC for want of any evidence, since PW7 and 8, who were examined to speak about the conspiracy, have turned hostile. So far as these two accused/appellants are concerned they are convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 341 IPC. That is how the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
15. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record carefully.
16. As we have narrated above, though motive has been spoken to by PWs1 and 2 and though PWs1 and 2 have been cross-examined at length, there is nothing suggested to them to deny the existence of ill-feeling between the deceased and the second accused. In our considered view, from the evidences of PW1 and PW2 the motive has been proved by the prosecution. But, motive is always a double edged weapon and therefore, only on that basis, one cannot rush to the conclusion that the appellants/A1 & A2 have got complicity in the commission of the crime.
17. Next, the prosecution mainly relies on the eyewitness account of PWs1 to 3. Though PW4 was examined as eyewitness, he has turned hostile and he has not stated anything incriminating the accused. The evidences of PWs1 to 3 are very seriously attacked by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants on many grounds by pointing out certain contradictions. At first, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the first information report being the foundation of the case should be free from any doubt, but, in this case, according to him, Ex.P1 is a doubtful document and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution should be viewed with suspicion. In order to substantiate this contention the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is the evidence of PW16 that while he was on duty in the police station on 26.03.2004, at 10.00 a.m. he received a telephonic message from PW4 about the occurrence, which was duly entered in the General Diary. The grievance expressed by the learned Senior Counsel is that the said General Diary containing the earliest information should have been placed before the Court in evidence. In other words, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the General Diary which contains the recording of the above information is the First Information Report and therefore, Ex.P1 which recorded at the place of occurrence subsequently from PW1 by PW16 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. We find every force in the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel.
18. In order to ascertain whether the said entry was made and whether there is anything in favour of the accused, this Court directed the respondent police to produce the General Diary. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had no serious objections for this Court calling for the document and perusing the same. Though we are conscious of the legal position that a document, which has not been admitted in evidence and not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be used against him. In the given case, we make it clear that we do not intend to use the General Diary either as a substantive piece of evidence or even as a corroborative piece of evidence, so that the accused can have grievance. We have intended to refer to the General Diary only to satisfy our judicial conscience as to whether really any such entry was made by PW16 in the General Diary and if so, to what effect.
19. Today, (21.12.2012), accordingly the respondent inspector of police, has produced the General Diary of the said police station. We have perused the same carefully. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants also had the benefit of going through the entire General Diary and to make his comments about the same. We find in the General Diary that at 10.00 a.m., PW16 had made an entry that PW4 (Ganapathy) informed him over phone that near Sappani Madasamy Temple, when PW1 and the deceased were going, these accused came in a motor cycle and attacked him with aruval resulting in his death. Thus, we find there is proper entry in the General Diary. Therefore, there is no reason for us to doubt the evidence of PW16, about the earliest information which was received from PW4 over phone.
20. Since, we have now found out that there was an earliest information about the occurrence, which has been duly entered in the General Diary, we have to necessarily hold that the General Diary is the First Information Report. Therefore, Ex.P1, which had come into being subsequently, is certainly hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. Simply because Ex.P1 is eschewed from evidence, on that score, the question is, whether the entire case of prosecution should be rejected. Our answer to this, is an emphatic "No". Because we have eschewed Ex.P1 from evidence, the prosecution is only deprived of using Ex.P1 as a corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW1. Except this disadvantage, in our considered opinion, there is no other disadvantage for the prosecution, neither there is any more advantage for the accused on this score.
21. At this juncture, we would like to clarify that we do not read the contents of the General Diary in evidence as the same have not been duly proved. We have used the General Diary only to the limited extent to ascertain as to whether PW16 really had received telephonic message from PW4 which promoted PW16 to go over to the place of occurrence. There is no legal bar to use the General diary for this limited purpose. Next, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that PW1 would not have been present at the time of occurrence. For this, he would submit that according to the positive case projected by the prosecution, PW1 and the deceased had gone together to the house of PW13 for receiving money. If that be so, nothing would have prevented PW13 from saying that PW1 accompanied the deceased to his house. But, the learned Senior Counsel would point out, PW13 has stated that the deceased alone came to his house for receiving money. From this, the learned Senior Counsel would try to make out a point that PW1 would not have accompanied the deceased at all to the house of PW13. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is true that PW13 has stated that the deceased alone came to his house. But, he would submit that at that time PW13 was inside his house and it might be the case that the deceased alone had entered into the house of PW13 and so there would have been no occasion for PW13 to see the presence of PW1, who was present outside the house.
22. During cross-examination of PW13, it was not at all elicited by the defence as to whether he saw the deceased inside his house or outside his house and whether he saw anybody outside the house. For a question, which was very general in nature, as to who came to his house, PW13 has stated that the deceased came to his house. From this vague answer, for a vague question, it cannot be held that PW1 did not come along with the deceased to the house of PW13 at all. As rightly, submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the deceased alone would have entered into the house of PW13 leaving behind PW1 outside the house and so PW13 would not have seen PW1. Thus, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the accused on this aspect is rejected.
23. The learned Senior Counsel contended that on their way back to home, PW1 and the deceased had gone to the shop of PW10 and purchased idlies and then they were proceeding to the house. At the place of occurrence, they saw PW2 and all of them were talking to each other and at that time, these accused attacked the deceased. If that is true, according to the learned Senior Counsel, idlies should have been found at the place of occurrence along with the bicycle. But, it is not in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that idlies were found at the time when the police came. PW21, would say that though he visited the place of occurrence, he did not notice idlies when he prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. Admittedly, there is no mention about the idlies in the observation mahazar as well as in the rough sketch. From this, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the deceased and PW1 would not have gone to the shop of PW10 at all. This argument, in our considered opinion, does not persuade us at all. As it is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it may be only a omission on the part of the investigating officer in not making a mention about the idlies. Probably PW21 would not have noticed or given importance for the idlies because in his assumption it was immaterial. Assuming that it was a flaw on the part of PW21, on that score, it is too difficult to disbelieve the evidence of PWs1 and 2.
24. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the purpose for which the deceased and PW1 had gone to PW13 has not been consistently spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. According to him, during investigation, PW1 told that he went along with the deceased to the house of PW13 to receive money, which was due from PW13, on account of sale of paddy to PW13. But, PW13 in his evidence has stated that the deceased came to his house for the purpose of receiving money due on account of the sale of a harvesting machine. This according to the learned Senior Counsel is a major contradiction, which creates doubt in the veracity of the evidence of PW1. In our considered opinion, though it is a contradiction, it cannot be construed to be a material contradiction, so as to doubt the evidence of PW1 in this regard. Therefore, this argument is also rejected.
25. Then, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that PW10 has stated that before the occurrence, he saw the two accused with motor cycle and weapon somewhere near the place of occurrence. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that this witness is a close relative of the deceased and he has been used as an omnibus witness for the purpose of preparing observation mahazar. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that PW10 is closely related to the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 should be rejected.
26. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit simply that because PW10 happens to be a distant relative of the deceased, the evidence of PW10 cannot be rejected. He would submit that at the most, the evidence of PW10 requires only close scrutiny.
27. In our considered view, assuming that PW10 cannot be believed for the reasons that he does not stand to the close scrutiny, on that score, the evidence of PWs1 to 3 cannot be rejected. PW10 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and therefore, one need not labour much to give importance to PW10.
28. The learned Senior Counsel would next submit that PWs2 and 3 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence at all. According to him, PW1 even in chief examination has stated that on hearing her alarm, these two witnesses came to the place of occurrence. Thus, according to him, PWs2 and 3 would not have seen the occurrence. A perusal of evidence of PW1, would go to show that she has stated about their meeting with PW2 just few yards from the place of occurrence. Thus, the presence of PW2 has been categorically stated by PW1. After speaking to PW2, when PW1 and the deceased just started moving, the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, the presence of PW2 cannot be disbelieved.
29. Coming to the presence of PW3, she has stated that while she was coming towards Sappani Madasamy temple, she heard the cry of PW1. Immediately, she rushed to the place of occurrence. At that time, she found the two accused cutting the deceased one after the another. Here nothing has been elicited from PW2 as to the distance from where she heard the cry of PW1. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that PW3 was at a far away place so that she could not have seen the occurrence at the time when PW1 cried. Therefore, this argument of the learned Senior Counsel is also rejected.
30. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that PWs2 and 3 are not residents anywhere near the place of occurrence and thus their presence at the place of occurrence was only by chance. As they are chance witnesses, unless their presence is established beyond reasonable doubts, according to the learned Senior Counsel, their presence should not be believed to be true. Regarding the said legal proposition there can be no doubt. It is essential for a witness, who claim to have been present by chance, to explain to the Court as to what was the occasion for him to be present at the crucial moment. In this case, a close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs2 and 3, would go to show that they have clearly explained the occasion by which they happened to be at the place of occurrence. Therefore, though PWs2 and 3 are chance witnesses, their chance presence at the place of occurrence has been duly explained away by PWs2 and 3 and so their presence cannot be doubted at all.
31. The learned Senior Counsel would draw our attention to the evidence of PW9, who has stated that about 10.00 am on the crucial date, he found these two accused going in a motor cycle with aruval in the hand of A1. He has further stated that he did not disclose the same to anybody until he was examined in Court. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that non disclosure of the said fact by PW9 even to the family members of the deceased would create doubt about his veracity. We find every force in the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel. PW9's failure to disclosure about the occurrence to anybody, until he was examined for the first time in Court creates doubt as it is not in tune of the natural conduct of a human being. Therefore, we are inclined to reject the evidence of PW9.
32. Now, coming to the arrest of these accused and recovery of material objects, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that evidence of PWs12 and 21 cannot be accepted. He would submit that these two accused had earlier surrendered before the court claiming themselves to be innocents. When that be so, it would not have been true that they suddenly changed their minds and confessed to the guilt. In our considered opinion, it all depends upon the mental framework of an individual. May be true that these accused originally, at the time of surrender, pleaded innocence. But, for their own reasons, they would have changed their mind and confessed to the guilt, when they were in police custody. It is not as though the entire confession is sought to be used against them. It is only the disclosure statement falling with the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is made use of against them. The alleged material object, namely aruval (MO9) is found to have contained human blood of human origin, that too, of 'AB' group. The bloodstains found on the dress materials of the deceased have also been found to have contained blood of 'AB' group. Thus, blood group also tallies. The motor cycle has been identified as the one in which, the accused came to the place of occurrence. This is yet another relevant fact, which incriminates the accused.
33. As we have done here, a clear scientific analysis of the entire materials available on record, clearly impel us to hold that from the evidence of PWs1 to 3 coupled with the other evidences, the prosecution has clearly proved that it was these two accused who cut the deceased and caused injuries. From the evidence of the doctor who conducted postmortem examination, the prosecution has proved that the death was due to cumulative effect of the injuries caused by these accused. Thus, the prosecution has proved that it was a homicide and the same was caused by these two accused alone.
34. Now coming to the question as to whether the act of the accused would amount to murder, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the act of the accused squarely falls within the first limb of Section 300 IPC. Having regard to the motive established by the prosecution, the weapon used, location of the injuries, number of injuries, and all the other attending circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that these two accused had come to the place of occurrence with a determination to kill the deceased and thus, the act of the accused squarely falls within the first limb of Section 300 IPC and does not fall under any of the special exceptions to Section 300 IPC. Therefore, the accused are liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC.
35. So far as the charge under Section 341 is concerned, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved the same also. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offence under Section 341 IPC is also liable to be confirmed.
36. Now, coming to the quantum of punishment, we do not find any infirmity. In our considered opinion, the sentences imposed on the appellants are fair, just and reasonable, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in the appeal and the appeal fails.
37.In the result, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are confirmed. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. The bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take necessary steps to secure the appellants/accused and commit them to jail to undergo the sentences imposed on them.
jikr To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli.
2. The Inspector of Police, Thirunelveli Taluk Police Station, I/C Sivanthipatti Police Station, Thirunelveli District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.