Madras High Court
A.Rajendran vs M.Sathasivam
Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 19.12.2024
: 15.05.2025
Pronounced On &
: 03.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
A.Rajendran ... Appellant
Vs.
M.Sathasivam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records relating to the judgment dated 21.11.2023 in C.C.No.
29 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Orathanadu, Thanjavur, and set aside the conviction against the
respondent/accused.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Rajendran
Party-in-person
For Respondent : Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar
Page No.1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm )
Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellant who is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.29 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu, Thanjavur, filed this appeal challenging the acquittal judgment passed in favour of the respondent in C.C.No.29 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu, Thanjavur, dated 21.11.2023.
2.According to the appellant, a pathway dispute was pending between the appellant and the respondent. On 16.01.2017, when the respondent caused obstruction to the pathway by putting wooden logs, the appellant ignored the obstruction and jumped over the obstruction. The same was questioned by the respondent and the respondent is said to have abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him with stick and caused injuries to him and also criminally intimidated him. Therefore, he gave a complaint to the jurisdictional police station. The jurisdictional Police received the complaint and did not take any action. Therefore, he filed petition in Cr.M.P.No.1250 of 2017 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu, and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the Page No.2 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 appellant filed revision in Cr.R.P.No.21 of 2017 before the District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, and the same was forwarded to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Pattukkottai, and the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied that prima facie case was made out made against the respondent and directed the jurisdictional Court to reconsider the same. Subsequently, the appellant filed Cr.M.P.Nos.1744 of 2018 and the same was also dismissed, against which, the appellant filed another revision in Cr.R.P.No.44 of 2018 and same was allowed and the learned Judge remanded the matter back to the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Judge in Cr.M.P.No.1745 of 2020, directed the jurisdictional police to register a case. As per direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the Pappanadu police registered a case in Crime No. 763 of 2022 for the offence under Section 341 and 324 of IPC. After the investigation, Pappanadu Police filed a negative report as “Mistake of Fact” before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu. Thereafter, he filed a protest petition and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.29 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu.
Page No.3 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summon to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate, furnished the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
4.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The learned trial Judge, questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against him, and he specifically stated that a false complaint was made in order to harass him. On the side of the accused neither witness was examined nor document was produced.
5. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence, acquitted the respondent by passing the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2023. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed appeal in CFR.No.72 of 2024, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Special Court under EC Act cases), Thanjavur. The learned Sessions Judge, rejected the appeal as not maintainable as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.89 and Page No.4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C.Nos.494 and 536 of 2019, dated 28.05.2020.
6.Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
7.The defacto complainant/appellant appeared before this Court as party-in-person, and made a detailed submission and filed written submission. The sum and substance of the case is that there was a pathway and the disputed pathway was enjoyed by both the parties and the respondent intentionally caused obstruction to the appellant. The appellant was assaulted by the respondent and the same was proved through the evidence. More particularly, he deposed before the Court below cogently. During the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his version. Therefore, the offence under Sections 341 and 324 is clearly made out. The learned trial Judge erroneously acquitted the respondent holding that there was no corroborative evidence and there is no material to prove that the charge framed against him is proved. Hence, he seeks to allow this appeal.
Page No.5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent made a counter argument by making written submission and also made oral submission. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned trial Judge correctly considered that there was no truth in the allegation made by the appellant and the allegation of assault made by him and causing injuries is not proved through legal evidence. Apart from that, in view of the pendency of the civil suit, the appellant gave a criminal colour to the civil dispute and filed the complaint without any material to satisfy the ingredients of the offence. He further submitted that in the case of appeal against acquittal, the inherent power of this Court is very much limited. Therefore, he seeks for confirmation of the acquittal judgment.
9.This Court considered the rival submission made by the appellant/party-in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.
10.Now the question which arise in this appeal is whether the learned trial Judge is correct in acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 341 and 324 of IPC?
Page No.6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
11.From the record, it is seen that P.W.1 namely the defacto complainant clearly deposed about the assault made on him on 16.01.2017, at 05.00 p.m. He also deposed that the respondent assaulted him with pestle (Ulakkai) and caused injuries on his forehead, and on his back and neck. Thereafter, he got himself admitted in Orathanadu Government Hospital and took treatment. The said evidence of P.W.1 is cogent and trustworthy. The accident register was produced under Ex.P. 17 and the same proves the injury. Therefore, the complainant gave categorical evidence about the charges framed against the respondent for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC. But, the learned trial Court has not properly considered the said material document and evidence. The learned trial Court has to borne in mind the following principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to appreciate the evidence of injured witness:
11.1(a) The Hon'ble Three Member Bench of Supreme Court in recent decision reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 355 held as follows:
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-
witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
Page No.7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the
prosecution version must be taken into
consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.Page No.8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.
11.1(b).Jodhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported on 2015 11 SCC 52 Page No.9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
28... for there is no rule of evidence that the testimony of the interested witnesses is to be rejected solely because other independent witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution have turned hostile.
29.... the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence.
11.1(c) Baleshwar Matho and another Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2017 3 SCC 152:
12. Here, PW 7 is also an injured witness.
When the eyewitness is also an injured person, due credence to his version needs to be accorded.
29.... In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon.
11.1.(d) Balwan and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2014 13 SCC 560
16. It is trite law that the evidence of injured witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of Page No.10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let the actual assailant go unpunished.
11.2. In this case, P.W.1 clearly deposed about the injuries sustained by him with pestle and the said injuries also corroborated with the medical evidence. Further PW-1 withstood the cross examination and nothing could be elicited to discard his testimony and his evidence is cogent and trustworthy and his evidence inspires the confidence of this Court. Therefore, the learned trial Judge erred in not convicting the respondent for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
12.The learned trial Judge gave a finding that due to motive, he was falsely implicated. The said finding is not supported by any material. It is true that there is a dispute pending between them relating to the usage of pathway. According to the complainant namely, appellant, the respondent frequently caused hindrance to the appellant for using the pathway. The assault made by the respondent is clearly proved through P.W.1's evidence supported by Ex.P.17. The learned trial Judge has also failed to consider the principle that enmity is a double edged weapon. Page No.11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 Merely because, there is a long standing dispute between the accused and the complainant it is not enough to reject the testimony of the injured witness. When the evidence of the injured witness is credible, consistent and trustworthy, having a ring of truth the same has to be accepted. In this case, P.W.1's evidence is clear in all aspects and hence, the learned trial Judge erroneously acquitted the accused.
13.In view of the above circumstances, this Court finds that the reason assigned by the learned trial Judge to acquit the respondent is not in accordance with law and also the finding rendered by the learned trial Judge is not legally valid. Ex.P.17 was furnished by the Hospital authority and the same was marked without objection. In the said circumstances, the learned trial judge wrongly held that the original was not produced. It is a certified copy obtained from the Court and the same was marked. Hence, the learned trial Judge rejecting the document is not accepted in accordance with law. Apart from that, the learned trial Judge also erroneously gave a finding that the police officer who filed the negative report was not examined. The same was not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. When the officer filed negative report, the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken it on file in C.C.No.29 of 2023 Page No.12 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 on the protest petition filed by the appellant. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the learned trial Judge to take adverse inference against the appellant for non examination of the police officer who had filed the negative report.
14.The learned trial Judge on the basis of the irrelevant material rejected the cogent and trustworthy evidence of the injured witness. On the basis of the evidence of the injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence, “the only view” is that the complainant proved the charged offence beyond any reasonable doubt and hence, the view taken by the learned trial Judge is “not a possible view”. Further, from the perverse finding of the learned trial Judge in all aspect, this Court finds “substantial and compelling reasons” to interfere with the impugned acquittal Judgement as held by the “Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court”, in the case of M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 22 has held the same in the following paragraph:
16....But the true legal position is that however circumspect and cautious the approach of the High Court may be in dealing with appeals against acquittals, it is undoubtedly entitled to Page No.13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 reach its own conclusions upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
17. In some of the earlier decisions of this Court, however, in emphasising the importance of adopting a cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals, it was observed that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the order of acquittal and so, “the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons” :
vide Surajpal Singh v. State [1951 SCC 1207 : (1952) SCR 193 at p. 201] . Similarly in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 2 SCC 709 : (1953) SCR 418] it was observed that the interference of the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal would be justified only if there are “very substantial and compelling reasons to do so”. In some other decisions, it has been stated that an order of acquittal can be reversed only for “good and sufficiently cogent reasons” or for “strong reasons”. In appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be remembered that these observations were not intended to lay down a rigid or inflexible rule which should govern the decision of the High Court in appeals against acquittals.Page No.14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 They were not intended, and should not be read to have intended to introduce an additional condition in clause (a) of Section 423(1) of the Code. All that the said observations are intended to emphasise is that the approach of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal ought to be cautious because as Lord Russell observed in the case of Sheo Swarup, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused “is not certainly weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial”. Therefore, the test suggested by the expression “substantial and compelling reasons” should not be construed as a formula which has to be rigidly applied in every case. That is the effect of the recent decisions of this Court, for instance, in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715] and Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 439] and so, it is not necessary that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the High Court must necessarily characterise the findings recorded therein as perverse.
14.1. In the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471 the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court has held as follows:
Page No.15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 “31.2.2. Where acquittal would result is gross miscarriage of justice:
(a) Where the findings of the High Court, disconnecting the accused persons with the crime, were based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence” 14.2. It is well settled that it is not every doubt, but only a reasonable doubt of which benefit is to be given to the accused. The function of the criminal Court is to find out the truth and it is not a correct approach to pick up the minor lapse. It is the duty of the Criminal Court to plug the said immaterial loopholes to ensure the criminal justice system is vibrant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 129 at page 154:
36.That apart, it is in the larger interest of the society that actual perpetrator of the crime gets convicted and is suitably punished. Those persons who have committed the crime, if allowed to go unpunished, this also leads to weakening of the criminal justice system and the society starts losing faith therein.
Therefore, the first part of the celebrated dictum “ten criminals may go unpunished but one innocent should not be convicted” has not to be taken routinely. No doubt, latter part of the aforesaid phrase i.e. “innocent Page No.16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 person should not be convicted” remains still valid. However, that does not mean that in the process “ten persons may go unpunished” and law becomes a mute spectator to this scenario, showing its helplessness. In order to ensure that criminal justice system is vibrant and effective, perpetrators of the crime should not go unpunished and all efforts are to be made to plug the loopholes which may give rise to the aforesaid situation.
14.3.In this case non production of the original medical certificate is irrevalant omission, when the case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate by following the private complaint procedure without accepting the closure report on the protest petition filed by P.W.1 to acquit the accused when the ring of the truth is undisturbed from the cogent and trustworthy evidence of injured witness and eye witnesses and medical evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has not properly addressed the issue of “reasonable doubt”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases has cautioned the Courts not to extend the proof of benefit of doubt so as to cause the disasterous result and unmerited acquittal:
Page No.17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 14.3.1.In the case of Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of W.B., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 466 at page 476 “16. A doubt of a timid mind which is afraid of logical consequences, cannot be said to be reasonable doubt. The experienced, able and astute defence lawyers do raise doubts and uncertainties in respect of evidence adduced against the accused by marshalling the evidence, but what is to be borne in mind is—whether testimony of the witnesses before the court is natural, truthful in substance or not. The accused is entitled to get benefit of only reasonable doubt i.e. the doubt which a rational thinking man would reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has no moral courage and prefers to take shelter itself in a vain and idle scepticism.
14.4.In the case of Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 597, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while cosidering the plea of beyond reasonable doubt, after considering the earlier precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the proof of beyond reasonable doubt and held that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be distorted into a doctrine of acquittal. The learned trial Judge without adhering to the above principles, acquitted the accused by extending the Page No.18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 principle of reasonable doubt on the basis of the irrelevant fact without making proper discussion over the testimony of injured witness/P.W.1 and doctor's evidence and other material circumstances, which leads to the only possible view of conviction of the accused for the charged offence.
15.In view of the above, this Court finds that the reason assigned by the learned trial Judge is not in accordance with law and hence, the acquittal judgment passed in C.C.No.29 of 2023, by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, Thanjavur, is liable to be set aside.
16.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the acquittal judgment passed in C.C.No.29 of 2023, by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, Thanjavur, dated 21.11.2023 and convict the accused/respondent for the offence under section 341 and 324 of IPC.Page No.19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
17. List this case for appearance of the respondent for questioning the sentence of imprisonment on 03.06.2025. The jurisdictional police is hereby directed to serve notice to the respondent informing the date of questioning on 03.06.2025.
15.05.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
vsg/sbn
Page No.20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm )
Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
Question of Sentence:
18.As per the direction of this Court dated 15.05.2025, the respondent/accused appeared before this Court. When the accused was questioned under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., about the sentence of imprisonment to be passed, he has pleaded as follows:
Accused Name Answer of the Accused M.Sathasivam vdf;F 65 taJ MfpwJ tNahjpa gpur;ridfs; cs;sJ.
vdf;F xU khw;Wjpwdhsp kfd; ,Uf;fpwhd;.
mtid ehd; kl;Lk; jhd; ftdpj;Jf;nfhs;s KbAk;.
Mifahy; vdf;F Fiwe;jgl;r jz;lid toq;f Nfl;Lf;nfhs;fpNwd;.
19.Considering the present age of the respondent ie., 65 and considering that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2017 and acquittal judgment passed in the year 2023, this Court is inclined to impose the following minimum sentence of imprisonment with fine and all the substantive sentence of imprisonments are to run concurrently. The period already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Page No.21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 Sl. Under Sections Accused Sentence of Fine Default No. name imprisonment amount sentence 1 324 of IPC M.Sathasivam Six months of Rs. One month of rigorous 2,000/- simple imprisonment imprisonment 2 341 of IPC M.Sathasivam Two months of -- -- rigorous imprisonment
20.After passing the sentence of imprisonment, the learned counsel for the respondent sought for an interim suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Considering the age and that the judgment of the trial Court was passed in the year 2023 reversed by this Court by this judgment and also considering the request of the respondent to give sufficient time to prefer appeal, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of imprisonment up to 30.07.2025. The respondent is hereby directed to surrender before the trial Court on 31.07.2025.
21.List this case on 01.08.2025 for reporting compliance.
03.06.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sbn
Page No.22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm )
Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024
To
1.The learned District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate Court,
Orathanadu, Thanjavur.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No.23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm ) Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
vsg/sbn Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.627 of 2024 15.05.2025 & 03.06.2025 Page No.24 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 05:03:02 pm )