Madras High Court
Jithendra Begra vs State Represented By on 23 March, 2016
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.03.2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Criminal Appeal Nos.86 and 184 of 2013 Jithendra Begra .. Appellant in C.A.86/2013 /First Accused Yuvaraj .. Appellant in C.A.184/2013 /Third Accused Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, K7, ICF Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.253 of 2003 .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 15.12.2012 made in S.C.No.258 of 2004, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. For Appellants in Crl.A.No.86/2013 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu in Crl.A.No.184/2013 : Mr.S.V.Udayakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The appellant in Crl.A.No.86 of 2013 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.184 of 2013 is the third accused in S.C.No.258/2004 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and they stood charged and tried for the commission of offence under Section 307 r/w.34 IPC (4 counts). The appellant in Crl.A.No.87/2013, namely the second accused died on 28.01.2015 and therefore, the said appeal was dismissed as abated. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15.12.2012, found both the accused guilty and convicted them for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC (4 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each count for each of the accused. The trial Court further ordered that the sentences to run concurrently and granted set-off under Section 428 CrPC and out of fine amount of Rs.1,20,000/- imposed on the accused, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be awarded as compensation to victim/PW1 after the expiry of appeal time.
2. Facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
2.1. PW1, namely Nirmala is the grand daughter of PW3, namely Dheenadayalan and Ekambari and PW2, namely Chitra is her younger sister. PW1 got engaged to one Manivannan and their betrothal function took place on 25.06.2003 and after the said function was over, PWs.1 to 3 and Ekambari were returning in an auto driven by PW4 to the residence of grandparents of PW3 and Ekambari. At about 1.15 p.m. on 25.06.2003 when the auto was nearing New Avadi Road, 'N' Block, the first accused along with the third accused came in an auto driven by the second accused, namely Murugan (since deceased), intercepted the auto in which the above said witnesses were travelling and due to previous enmity, the first accused threw acid, which was kept in a plastic mug and as a consequence, all the inmates of the auto suffered severe burn injuries. Immediately, all the victims were taken to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and admitted in Burns Ward.
2.2. PW15, on receipt of telephonic information, went to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and reached at about 1.50 p.m. on 25.05.2003 and examined PW1, who was admitted in Burns Ward and obtained her statement and it was read over and after getting confirmation as to correctness of the contents of the statement, her left hand thumb impression was obtained in the said statement, marked as Ex.P1. PW15 came tack to K7, ICF Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.253/2003 for the commission of offence under Section 307 IPC at about 14.30 hours and took up the investigation. The printed F.I.R was marked as Ex.P20, wherein name of the accused was shown as Japan and it reached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on the next day at about 10.30 a.m. 2.3. PW15 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW10 and another, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, marked as Exs.P21 and P22 respectively and examined one Paramasivam and PW13 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, PW15 examined PW2, Ekambari and PW3 who were admitted in the Burns ward and also recorded their statements. PW15 collected the Burnt silk saree/M.O.1 under Form 95, marked as Ex.P23 and on identifying the accused, namely accused 2 and 3, they were examined and both of them voluntarily came forward to give confession statement in the presence of PW5 and one Sundar and as per the admissible portion of the confession statement of second accused, marked as Ex.P25, plastic mug/M.O.2 was recovered under Mahazar/Ex.P26. First accused was arrested on 04.06.2003 and he voluntarily came forward to give confession statement which was recorded in the presence of PW12 and one Johny and as per the admissible portion of the confession of first accused, marked as Ex.P27, the acid bottle/M.O.4 was recovered under Mahazar/Ex.P28. The auto driven by second accused was also seized and marked as M.O.3. PW15 sent the seized material objects, namely M.Os.2 and 4 for chemical analysis and the Chemical Analyst Report was marked as Ex.P4 and the statement of the Scientific Assistant, namely PW6 was also recorded.
2.4. PW15 also got the Accident Register copies of PW1, Ekambari, PW2 to PW4, marked as Exs.P10 to P13 respectively and also examined the doctors who treated the victims, namely PWs.6 to 9 and recorded their statements. PW15 also collected inpatient receipts of the victims from Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, which were marked as Exs.P6 to P9. PW15, after completion of investigation, had filed the charge sheet against all the accused charging them for the commission of offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC (4 counts) on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, who took it on file in P.R.C.No.277/2003. The committal Court issued summons to all the accused and on their appearance, furnished to them copies of documents under Section 207 CrPC and having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, made over the same to the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the said Court, in-turn made over the same to IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The trial Court, on appearance of the accused, had framed charges for the offences as stated above and questioned them and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.
2.5. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined PWs.1 to 15, marked Exs.P1 to P28 and also marked M.Os.1 to 4. All the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false and also filed their written statement stating among other things that they have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and they were falsely implicated and prayed for their acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no document was marked. The trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, convicted and sentenced all the accused as stated above and hence, these appeals. As already pointed out, since the second accused, namely the appellant in Crl.A.No.87/2013 is no more, the appeal filed by him was dismissed as abated.
3. When these two appeals were taken up for hearing, this Court found that deposition copy of the Investigating Officer was not available in the typed set of documents and accordingly, directed the Registry to furnish copies of the said deposition to the respective learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.86/2013/first accused made the following submissions:
(i) Admittedly, first accused is a native of Orissa and he does not have any working knowledge of vernacular language, namely Tamil and therefore, all the documents furnished to him under Section 207 CrPC ought to have been translated in Odiya language and since it was not done, he has been put to grave prejudice as he is unable to understand the materials relied on by the prosecution to sustain the charges framed against him so as to enable him to effectively assist his counsel and to participate in the trial.
(ii) As per the version of injured witnesses, namely PWs.1 to 4, the occurrence would not have occurred in the manner suggested by the prosecution for the reason that as per the sitting arrangements in the auto, it would not have been possible for all the accused to sustain burn injuries on the alleged throwing of acid purportedly by the first accused.
(iii) Motive aspect has not been proved by the prosecution for the reason that no witness had spoken about the alleged love affair between first accused and PW1 and the alleged failure of love, which resulted in throwing of acid by him upon the victims, especially PW1.
(iv) Material witnesses, namely Paramasivam and Mariappan have not been examined by the prosecution purposively for the reason that they would have spoken about motive entirely different from that of the case of the prosecution.
(v) Arrest of the accused and recovery effected were stage managed and the material objects especially, M.Os.2 and 4 which were procured and spilled with acid by the prosecution themselves to get the Chemical Analyst Certificate to support their version.
(vi) The prosecution has not examined anybody from Surya Kalyanamandapam in which the betrothal function said to have taken place and so also the fiancie engaged to PW1, namely Manivannan and in the absence of the same, it was highly doubtful whether the victims would have travelled in the auto driven by PW4 on that particular day.
(vii) The material witnesses, during the course of testimonies, had made very many improvements from that of their statements recorded during investigation and therefore, it is wholly unsafe to rely on their testimonies for the purpose of convicting the first accused.
(viii) PW1 lost eye sight of one of her eyes and PWs.2 to 4 had suffered only minor burn injuries and therefore, imposition of punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life, in any event is highly disproportionate to the alleged commission of offence and prays for modification of conviction and sentence.
5. Mr.S.Udhayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.184/2013/third accused apart from adopting the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the first accused would contend that identification as to the persons who accompanied the first accused was very much doubtful and even as per the version of the prosecution, he has not been attributed with any overt act and witnesses prepared and materials collected were stage managed to connect him with the commission of offences and prays for acquittal. Alternatively, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.184/2013/third accused that he is married and having two minor children and taking into consideration of the fact that even assuming he travelled in the auto, admittedly did not threw acid upon the victims and prays for modification of the conviction and sentence.
6. Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that motive for the commission of offence was one side love affair and the first accused was in love with PW1, however it was not reciprocated and enraged by the fact that she got engaged, first accused along with accused 2 and 3 decided to spoil her future and accordingly, purchased Acid and M.O.3/Auto was driven by second accused in which accused 1 and 3 travelled and they intercepted the auto in which the injured witnesses were travelling and first accused, threw acid on PW1 and she suffered major burn injuries and the acid got spilled and sprinkled upon PW2 as well as driver of the auto and immediately all of them rushed and admitted in Burns Ward of Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and PW15, on receipt of telephonic information, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1, wherein she has given the name of first accused and even before the Casualty Medical Officers/Doctors, she revealed the name of first accused as the prime accused. The in-patient receipts, marked as Exs.P5 to Ex.P9 and Accident Register copies, marked as Exs.P10 to P14 would disclose the fact that PWs.1 to 4 had sustained injuries on account of throwing acid and PW1 had lost eyesight in one of her eyes and also got disfigured face and so also PW2 and Ekambari/grandmother of PW1, had also suffered burn injuries and also unable to comprehend the fact that on account of disfigurement, marriage prospects of her grand daughter spoiled and all the testimonies of the injured witnesses corroborate with each other on material particulars and it is also supported by scientific evidence. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in pursuant to admissible portion of the confession statement of accused 1 and 2, plastic Mug/M.O.2 and Acid Bottle/M.O.4 were recovered and also subjected to scientific analysis and as per Chemical Analyst Report/Ex.P4 coupled with the evidence of PW6, the contents were found to be Nitric Acid and the effect of the same was also clearly indicated in Ex.P4/Chemical Report. Thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the trial Court has rightly imposed maximum sentence and also awarded compensation to PW1/victim and hence, prays for dismissal of this appeal.
7. This Court, after careful consideration of rival submissions and on careful scrutiny and analysis of oral and documentary evidence as well as original documents, is of the considered view that the appeal filed by the first accused deserves dismissal and the appeal filed by the third accused is to be partly allowed and the conviction and sentence requires modification for the following reasons.
8. It is the first and foremost submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused that he is a native of Orissa State and he does not have working knowledge of vernacular language, namely Tamil and since most of the documents furnished to him are in Tamil/English, he was unable to understand the same and thereby, prevented from giving effective instructions to his counsel to conduct the case and therefore, the entire trial is vitiated. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance. According to the prosecution, first accused came to Chennai from Orissa long back and knows the vernacular language, namely Tamil and did not raise any objection during the course of trial. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that no objection or prejudice whatsoever has been raised by the appellant/accused with regard to furnishing of documents in Tamil/English and even at the time of questioning under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC.
9. It is relevant to extract Section 465 CrPC:
465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason or error, omission or irregularity.- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, or sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at a earlier stage in the proceedings.
10. Admittedly, appellant/accused did not raise any objection or prejudice at the earliest point of time and was participating in the trial all along and his counsel has also done cross examination of the witnesses exhaustively. Therefore, in the absence of prejudice, plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial is vitiated, is of no substance and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the said submission is outrightly rejected.
11. PW1 would depose that there was enmity between her grandfather and junior grandfather and they reeled out a story as if there was enmity between her and first accused and would further state that after the betrothal function was, over she along with her younger sister/PW2 and grandparents were returning in the auto driven by PW4 and she sat near the entrance and nearby her, her grandmother and on her lap, her sister/PW2 and thereafter, his grandfather were sitting and when the auto was nearing New Avadi Road, Gandhi Nagar, another auto followed them and after overtaking them, it stopped and on the left side of the auto, first accused was sitting and it was driven by second accused and she knew his name and she was admitted in the hospital and first accused threw something and immediately she got burning sensation and when other inmates were asked, they stated that first accused threw something on PW1's face, chest, rear side and other inmates also suffered burn injuries and immediately admitted in the Burns Ward of Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and police personnel came and recorded their statements and also handed over the silk saree, marked as M.O.1 and identified Plastic Mug/M.O.2 and further deposed that she also lost eyesight of her right eye and suffered disfigurement of her face. PW1 would further depose that at the instance of the son of her junior grandfather, the first accused threw acid. In the cross examination she would depose that she denied the suggestion that at the instance of the son of her junior grandfather, acid was thrown and though from the place of occurrence, K7 Police Station was very nearby, they did not lodge any complaint.
12. PW2, namely younger sister of PW1, also corroborate with the evidence of PW1 and she categorically stated that only the first accused threw acid and it got sprinkled on all the inmates of the auto. PW3 is the grandfather of PWs.1 and 2 and his oral testimony is also in consonance with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and he would further depose that at the instance of his younger brother only, it was done and he only spread rumour about the relationship between PW1 and first accused. In the cross examination done on behalf of third accused, PW3 would depose that his brother was responsible for pouring acid. PW4, auto driver, would depose that he also suffered burn injuries and also identified the accused in the Court and he immediately, after the occurrence, went to K4 Police Station and they advised him to approach K7 Police Station.
13. PW7 was the Casualty Medical Officer, who treated PW1 and she deposed that she suffered 26% burn and she lost her eye sight also and got disfigurement of the face. PW8, doctor who treated PW2, would depose that she suffered 15% burn injuries on the right side of the neck, right side shoulder, rear side as well as on the chest. PW9 was the Casualty Medical Officer and she would depose that at the time of admission, PW1 told her that at about 1.15 p.m. a person known to her threw acid upon her and also examined other injured witnesses and also issued Accident Register and made entries in the Casualty Register. Thus the testimonies of all the above said injured witnesses corroborate with each other on all material particulars as to the overt act of pouring acid on the part of the first accused.
14. It is a well settled position of law that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal that an ordinary witness and the said testimony is sufficient to base conviction and no further corroboration is required if it is found to be believable and trustworthy.
15. In Vijay Shankar Shinde and Others v. State of Maharashtra [2008 Crl.L.J. 1632 SC] it has been held that the evidence of injured person who is examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant.
16. In the case on hand, the testimonies of the injured witnesses, as already pointed out, corroborate with each other on all material particulars and the prosecution has also proved the fact that at the time and place of occurrence spoken to by them, they sustained injuries. The testimonies of PWs.6 to 9, namely the doctors attached to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital coupled with Exs.P5 to P14 would also lends credence and support the oral evidence.
17. The Director of Forensic Lab was examined as PW6 and after examining the material objects, he had found trace of acid in M.Os.2 and 4 and in Ex.P4, the effect of Nitric Acid has been noted and it is relevant to extract the same:
1. Nitric acid is a corrosive acid.
2. Nitric acid causes corrosive discolouration of skin, cloth and all organic matters.
3.Nitric acid on contract or on consumption may cause grievous injury which may endanger human life.
4. Please note that item 2 (an autorickshaw) has already been returned through the same Police Constable No.15119 Thiru.M.Gopalakrishnan on 13.6.2003 vide reference No.2 cited above.
5. The items were numbered in the laboratory.
6. The sample in item No.4 was used up in analysis.
18. In pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement of accused 1 and 3, M.Os.2 to 4 were recovered and as already pointed out, the testimony of PW6 would indicate that M.Os.2 to 4 contain the trace of Nitric Acid and it also substantiate the fact that Acid was thrown upon PW1 and it got spilled and as a consequence, other inmates of the auto, driven by PW4, had also sustained injuries.
19. It is also to be noted at this juncture that PWs.1 and 2 were aged about 23 years and PW1, just prior to the commission of offence, got engaged and on account of throwing of acid on her by the first accused, not only her face got disfigured but also lost the eye sight of her right eye and suffered burn injuries. PW2 also suffered extensive burn injuries on her neck, shoulder, chest and in the back. It is the alternative submission of the learned counsel appearing for the first accused that even for the sake of arguments that on account of throwing acid by first accused, PWs.1 to 4 had sustained injuries but no death had occurred and therefore, sentence of imprisonment for life with exorbitant amount as fine is highly disproportionate and prays for leniency.
20. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal [(1994) 2 SCC 220] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.
21. In Kishori v. State of Delhi [AIR 1999 SC 382], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Courts must be alive and in tune with the notions prevalent in the society and punishment imposed upon an accused must be commensurate with the heinousness of the crime and it is very difficult to gauge or assess what the nations of the society are in a given situation and there may be one section of the society which may cry for a very deterrent sentence while another section of the society may exhort upon the Court to be lenient in the matter and to gauge such notions is to rely upon highly slippery imponderables. Therefore, it is a pious duty of every Court to award proper sentence in a manner protecting social interest having regard to the nature of the offence as well as the manner in which it was executed or committed.
22. In Jeshubba Bharat Singh v. State of Gujarat [(1994) 4 SCC 353], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
23. This Court, keeping in mind the above cited judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is of the considered opinion that considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was executed, sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court with sentence of fine is a fit and adequate sentence upon the appellant/first accused. The trial Court had exhaustively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence and rightly reached the conclusion to do so and this Court finds no error or infirmity or illegality in the said approach adopted by the trial Court.
24. Therefore, C.A.No.86/2013 filed by the first accused is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused, vide Judgment dated 15.12.2012 made in S.C.No.258 of 2004 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
25. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.184 of 2013/third accused would contend that the third accused is a married man and out of wedlock, begot two female children and they also appeared before us. Even as per the version of the prosecution that he did not threw acid and it was done only by the first accused, no doubt he shared the common intention with the first accused. Since the third accused has not been attributed with any overt act apart from sharing common intention and taking into consideration of the fact that he is the sole bread winner of the family and having two female children, to educate and brought up, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed on him requires modification.
26. In the result, Crl.A.No.184 of 2013 is partly allowed and the conviction for offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC (4 counts) imposed on the appellant/third accused is confirmed, however the sentence is modified to one of rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/third accused has been suspended by this Court pending disposal of this appeal and in view of the modification of sentence as above, the trial Court as well as the Investigating Officer are directed to take immediate and necessary steps to secure his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded by this Court. Bail bonds executed by him shall stand cancelled/terminated.
27. As per Section 357-A CrPC, Victim Compensation Scheme has been formulated by the State Government. In Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India and Others [(2015) 8 MLJ 504 (SC) = 2015 (3) Scale 325], a registered NGO, namely Parivartan Kendra has filed a Public Interest Litigation under Section 32 of the Constitution of India highlighting the plight of acid attack victims and inadequacy with regard to compensation payable to the victims as per the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi v. Union of India (in Writ Petition (Crl.)No.129 of 2006). The facts of the case would disclose that all the victims were terrorized to heed to the demand of the accused to have sexual relationship and on a particular day at night hours, the accused poured acid on the face and body of the victim and also upon the sister of the victim and burnt her arm. The Honble Supreme Court of India after extracting the above cited order, on the facts of the case, found that elder sister suffered 28% burns on her body and 90% on her face owing to alleged brutal attack on her and due to acid attack, the victim underwent several surgeries and to undergo many more surgeries for her treatment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also summed up the plight of the victim in para 17 and it is relevant to extract the same:
17. Considering the plight of the victim we can sum up that:
The likeliness of the victim getting a job which involves physical exertion of energy is very low.
The social stigma and the pain that she has to go through for not being accepted by the society cannot be neglected. Furthermore, the general reaction of loathing which she would have to encounter and the humiliation that she would have to face throughout her life cannot be compensated in terms of money.
As a result of the physical injury, the victim will not be able to lead a normal life and cannot dream of marriage prospects.
Since her skin is fragile due to the acid attack she would have to take care of it for the rest of her life. Therefore, the after care and rehabilitation cost that has to be incurred will have huge financial implications on her and her family.
28. In the case on hand, PW1 had lost eye sight of her right eye and also suffered extensive burn injuries on the face and body and so also PW2 younger sister, suffered extensive burn injuries on her neck, shoulder, chest and so also PWs.3 and 4. In the light of the above factual aspect, this Court is of the view that PW1 is to be compensated in terms of Section 357-A CrPC. Since PWs.2 to 4 had also suffered burn injuries and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is also monitoring cases in respect of acid attack victims, this Court is of the considered view that they are also entitled to get compensation. Therefore, State Government is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to PW1 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to PWs.2 to 4 as compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(S.N.J.,) (M.S.N., J.)
23.03.2016
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
jvm
To
1.IV Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
K7, ICF Police Station,
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.,
and
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
jvm
Common Judgment in
Criminal Appeal Nos.86 and 184 of 2013
23.03.2016