Shaik Abdul Rahiman Dileep, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9634 AP

                                  1

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.506 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:-

           The unsuccessful accused in Sessions Case No.224

of 2008, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Vijayawada, filed this appeal challenging the judgment, dated

17.03.2010

, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila

Court, Vijayawada, found the appellant guilty of the charges

under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for

short) and convicted him under Section 235 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) and after questioning

him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine

of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three

months for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and further

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. and that both the

substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter

be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3) The Sessions Case No.224 of 2008 arose out of

P.R.C.No.30 of 2008, on the file of II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, connected to Crime

No.230 of 2008 of Law and Order I Town Police Station,

Vijayawada.

4) The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada, filed the charge sheet

in the above said Crime Number alleging in substance that

accused is resident of Out Agency, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

The victim is the second daughter of L.W.1-Mohammed Anwar

and is resident of Rangoon Saheb Street, Harijanawada, Out

Agency, Bhavanipuram. She is studying IX class in Urdu School

at Bhavanipuram. Previously, accused was co-tenant of L.W.1

in the house bearing Door No.75-2-34/B in Rangoon Saheb

Street, Harijanawada, Out Agency, Bhavanipuram. He observed

the victim very closely and gradually developed friendship with

her, lured her with his deceitful representations and somehow

took her into his fold. He fulfilled his sexual lust with her about

three months back at her house during the absence of other

inmates. Thereafter, for two or three times he had sexual

intercourse with her. About two months back prior to

24.04.2008, due to disputes between accused mother and his

wife in the house, accused vacated the house. Mother of

accused separated from the accused. Accused with his wife

lived in separate house under the flood bank. Even then, he

used to meet the victim near her school and take her to the

house of his wife during her absence and had sexual intercourse

with her. Later, he shifted along with his wife into another

house, near P.R.K. building in Swathi Theater road,

Bhavanipuram. Thereafter, disputes arose between him and his

wife and she went away to her maternal house. Taking

advantage of it, accused induced the victim that he would marry

her and again had sexual intercourse with her and made her

pregnant and later avoided for marriage.

5) Since, about two months prior to 24.04.2008, victim

got abdominal pain due to non-menstrual cycle. Then, her

parents took her to Government hospital on 24.04.2008 where

the doctor examined her and opined that she is pregnant. Then,

they brought her to the house and questioned and then only she

narrated the entire incident to her mother, L.W.3-Mohammed

Hammedunnisa. L.Ws.1 and 3 could come to know about the

offence committed by the accused on their minor daughter. On

28.04.2008 at 6-30 P.M., they brought victim to I Town Police

Station, Vijayawada and the father of victim presented a report

about the occurrence. L.W.11-Sub-Inspector of Bhavanipuram

Sector, registered the report as a case in Crime No.230 of 2008

under Section 376 of I.P.C. The Circle Inspector of Police i.e.,

L.W.12 took up investigation. He inspected the scene of offence

and prepared rough sketch. He examined the connected

witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the victim for

medical examination. L.W.8-Dr. N. Durga Sri Lakshmi, treated

the victim and opined that the victim is carrying 10 weeks

pregnancy. L.W.9-Dr.P. Chandrasekhar Rao, Medical Officer,

examined the victim for age determination and issued age

determination certificate opining that she is aged about 15

years. The investigating Officer arrested the accused on

30.04.2008 and subjected him for medical examination and

later, sent him for remand. L.W.10-Dr. P. Vijaya Kumar,

Professor and Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine,

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, examined the

accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that

individual is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. L.W.11-

A. Janaki Rani, Headmistress issued study certificate of the

victim stating that the date of birth of the victim is 11.05.1993.

Therefore, accused is liable for the punishment.

6) The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the case and after

complying necessary formalities, under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,

committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereupon, it

was made over to Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada.

After appearance of the accused before the said Court and after

following the procedure under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., the

learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, framed

charges under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C. against the

accused and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7) During the course of trial, on behalf of the

prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9

were marked. After closure of the evidence of prosecution,

accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with

reference to the incriminating circumstances, for which he

denied the same and stated that he has no defence witnesses.

8) The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Vijayawada, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of

the charges under Sections 376 and 417 of I.P.C. and

accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as above. The learned

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, acquitted the

accused for the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by

the conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful appellant filed the

present appeal.

9) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Appeal, the

point that arises for consideration is as to whether the

prosecution before the Court below proved that accused

subjected the victim to rape three months prior to the report

lodged by P.W.1 and that further he promised the victim to

marry and as such committed sexual intercourse upon the

victim?

Point:-

10) Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel,

representing the learned counsel for the appellant, would

contend that basing on the solitary testimony of P.W.2, the

victim, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada,

recorded an order of conviction erroneously and the evidence

adduced by the prosecution is not at all convincing. P.W.1 the

father of victim, P.W.2 the victim and P.W.3 are interested in

nature in the case of the prosecution. He would contend that

the prosecution relied upon the age determination certificate,

according to which, the victim is aged about 15 years.

According to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a

margin of error of two years can be given and if that is

considered, the age of the victim would be 17 years. He would

contend that if the Court considered the evidence on record, it

would mean that victim was said to be a consenting party and in

that event when the age of the victim was 17 years by the time

of offence, it would not amounts to rape according to Section

375 clause sixth of I.P.C., because, sexual intercourse with or

without the consent is an offence of rape, when the victim is

under 16 years of age only. At any rate, the judgment of the

learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, is not tenable

under law, as such, it is liable to be interfered. He would further

submit that appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the

conviction and sentence imposed against the accused.

11) In support of the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of J.

and K. and others1 and the judgment of High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Salagala Prabhudas vs. State of A.P.2 in Criminal

Appeal No.667 2003.

12) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that

the evidence of P.W.2 (victim) is totally satisfactory and

conviction can be based upon the solitary evidence of the

prosecutrix. He would further contend that the prosecution even

got marked the school certificate of the victim, which reveals

that the victim was below 15 years even as on the date of

offence and when there is voluminous evidence available to

prove the age of the victim, the contention of the appellant

cannot be accepted. Accused did not dispute the age of the

AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1297

2007 (24) Criminal CC391, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 459

victim throughout the trial and now cannot dispute the age of

the victim. He would further submit that the judgment of the

learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, is with

reasons and it is tenable under law, as such, appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

13) To bring home the guilt against the accused,

prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. P.W.1 is the

father of the victim. P.W.2 is no other than the victim. P.W.3 is

the person, who claimed to have witnessed when the accused

and victim were moving with each other by side by side, etc.

and he further came to know about the fact that P.W.2 got

pregnancy. P.W.4 is the Assistant Professor in the Department

of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, who examined the

victim and issued the age determination certificate. P.W.5 is the

Medical Officer, who examined the victim and found that she is

carrying 10 weeks pregnancy. P.W.6 is the then Professor of

Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada,

who examined the accused about his capacity to perform sexual

act. P.W.7 is the Headmistress, who was examined by the

police during investigation and who issued the study certificate

revealing the date of birth of the victim as per the school

records as that of 11.05.1993. P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of

Police, who received the report from P.W.1 and registered F.I.R.

P.W.9 is the investigating officer. P.W.10 is the successor of

P.W.9.

14) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to

whether the prosecution was able to prove before the Court

below that the victim was aged about 15 years at the time of

commission of rape alleged against the accused. Coming to the

evidence of P.W.1, he deposed that L.W.3-Mohammed

Hameedunnisa is his wife. L.W.2 (victim) is his second

daughter. In the year, 2008 they were residing in

Bhavanipuram Out Agency area. Later, they shifted to Rangoon

street. His daughter is studying Intermediate I year. At the

time of incident, she was aged about 14 years and studying IX

class in S.M.S. School. He knows the accused and he was

residing in neighbouring house along with his wife and mother.

This is the portion of the evidence of P.W.1 insofar as age of the

victim is concerned.

15) Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, in the year 2007

she was studying IX class in Urdu School. She furnished her

age as that of 16 years as on the date of examination i.e.,

recording of evidence on 09.11.2009. She further deposed that

at the time of offence, she was aged about 14 years and she

was born on 11.05.1993.

16) Turning to the evidence of P.W.4, the Assistant

Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur, on

01.05.2008 he received requisition from I Town Police Station,

Vijayawada, for age determination of victim girl (name is edited

by this Court). On the same day, he conducted physical, dental

and radiological examination of the victim and given his opinion

regarding her age basing on the physical, dental and radiological

examiantion. He opined that the victim girl was aged about 15

years. He issued age determination certificate under Ex.P.2.

17) Turning to the evidence of P.W.7, who is

Headmistress in S.M.A. Municipal Corporation Urdu High School,

she deposed that P.W.2 was studying in their school. As per the

records, from I class in Admission No.3803, she passed her X

class and she issued her study certificate. She also issued

Transfer Certificate on 27.06.2009. As per the study certificate,

her date of birth is 11.05.1993. She verified the records and

issued study certificate. Ex.P.5 is the study certificate issued by

her on 30.07.2008. Witness identified P.W.2 in the Court and

stated that she studied in her school. Coming to the evidence of

P.W.9, the investigating officer, he spoken the fact that he took

P.W.2 to the Government Hospital for medical examination, etc.

Apart from this, P.W.10 deposed that he examined the

Headmistress and obtained Ex.P.5, study certificate to show the

age of the victim.

18) During cross examination of P.W.1 accused did not

dispute the age of P.W.2. During cross examination of P.W.2,

who is no other than the victim, accused never disputed the age

of P.W.2 when she specifically stated that she was born on

11.05.1993 and at the time of offence she was aged about 14

years. Similarly, accused did not cross examine P.W.4 and

reported Nil cross examination when evidence of P.W.4 is such

that victim was aged about 15 years and she issued age

determination certificate under Ex.P.2. Apart from this, when

P.W.7 deposed that on due verification of the records, she

issued study certificate mentioning the date of birth of the victim

as on 11.05.1993, accused reported Nil cross examination. So,

even before P.W.7, accused did not dispute the age of the

victim. Similarly, when P.W.9 deposed that he took the victim

to the hospital for medical examination and when P.W.10

deposed that he examined the Headmistress and obtained date

of birth certificate as that of 11.05.1993, accused did not

dispute before P.W.10, the investigating officer, as to the age of

the victim. So, throughout the trial, accused did not dispute the

age of the victim. Now, for the first time, in the appeal and at

the time of advancing arguments in the appeal, the contention

of the appellant is that a margin of two years is to be given.

19) This Court has carefully looked into Jaya Mala's case

(1 supra), it is a case a where writ petition is filed before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus. The detenue

claimed to be a minor filed the said writ petition stating that he

was a minor, aged about 17 years at the time of arrest and

detention. The State contended that the age of the detenue was

18 and 19 years. The State sought to support the age of the

detenue by relying upon the radiologist opinion. So, when the

age of the detenue was in dispute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

looking into the radiological examination, held that one can take

judicial notice that margin of error in age ascertained by

radiological examination is two years on either side. Coming to

the present case on hand, it is not as though accused disputed

the age of the victim, as this Court already pointed out.

20) Apart from this, apart from the medical examination

of the victim through P.W.4 and obtaining certificate under

Ex.P.2, it is categorical evidence of P.W.7, the Headmistress,

that the date of birth of the victim is 11.05.1993 as per the

study certificate, which was issued by verifying the school

records. Apart from this, the victim categorically spoken about

the date of birth as that of 11.05.1993. So, it is not a case

where the prosecution sought to prove the age of the victim

solely basing on the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P.2. On the other

hand, the prosecution adduced cogent evidence by examining

school authority and by getting marked entries in the school

records to show the age of the victim.

21) Under the circumstances, the appellant cannot

contend that a margin of error of two years is to be given in

respect of the age of the victim overlooking the evidence of

P.W.7 and Ex.P.5 and overlooking the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

Hence, in my considered view, on account of the fact that the

prosecution has adduced cogent evidence, as to the age of the

victim, which is not at all disputed by the accused throughout

the trial, the accused cannot contend that age of the victim was

17 years by relying the Jaya Mala's case (1 supra).

22) Turning to the another decision in Salagala

Prabhudas's case (2 supra), it is a case where the victim was

stated to be at the age of 16 or 17 years and it was also a case

where the trial Court convicted the accused therein under

Section 376 and 417 of I.P.C. and the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh reversed the conviction under Section 376 of I.P.C. and

maintained conviction under Section 417 of I.P.C. It was the

case where there was solitary evidence of P.W.4, the medical

officer, with reference to his examination of the victim and he

admitted in the cross examination that the margin of error

would be an year and in such circumstances, the High Court

held that in the light of the facts elicited from P.W.8, there is no

authentic evidence to show that P.W.1 age is below 16 years on

the date of incident.

23) The factual matrix in the above said case obviously

stands in a different footing. Here, there is no dispute about the

age of the victim during the course of trial. Evidence of

prosecution witnesses, as referred to above, is not challenged by

the accused by disputing the age of the victim. Apart from the

medical evidence, there is evidence of P.W.5 coupled with

Ex.P.5. The evidence of Headmistress and contents of school

certificate is not challenged. Under the circumstances, the

accused cannot support his contentions by relying upon the

above said decision.

24) Hence, I hold that the date of the offence in question

was said to be three months prior to Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 was lodged

on 28.04.2008. According to the evidence on record, the victim

was born on 11.05.1993. So, as on the date of offence, even

the victim could not complete 15 years and she completed 14

years at the time of commission of offence.

25) Now, this Court has to see as to whether the

prosecution before the Court below was able to prove that

accused committed rape against the victim and that he made a

false promise to marry her and enjoyed her sexually. To prove

the same, there is evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

26) With regard to the evidence on this aspect, the

evidence of P.W.1 is that on 23.04.2008 his daughter (L.W.2)

was suffering from stomach-ache, as such, he took her to

Government hospital, Vijayawada on 24.04.2008. His wife also

accompanied them to the hospital. Doctor examined the victim

and stated that she was carrying pregnancy of more than two

months i.e., 10 weeks. Then he and his wife questioned his

daughter. She stated that accused committed rape on her. She

stated that the accused committed rape on her two months prior

to vacating the house by the accused. She further stated that

accused threatened her and her parents not to reveal the same

to them. Then, they asked the mother of accused, but, she

stated that she does not know anything. After four days they

lodged a report. Police examined him.

27) Turning to the testimony of P.W.2, the victim, she

deposed that presently she is studying I year Intermediate.

P.W.1 is her father. L.W.3-Mohammed Hameedunnissa is her

mother. L.Ws.4 and 5 are neighbourers. L.W.7 is the owner of

their neighbour house when they were residing in Bhavanipuram

Out Agency area. They shifted to Rangoon Saheb Street about

15 days back. She knows the accused, who was residing in her

neighbouring house along with his wife, mother and sister. By

the time they went to that house in 2007, the accused was

residing there. In the year 2007, she was studying IX class in

Urdu School. She used to call the accused as brother, as

accused was residing besides their house. So, they were

moving closely with each other. When there were no one in her

house, accused with a promise of marriage, committed rape on

her. As there was an altercation between the wife and mother

of the accused in March, 2008, they shifted their house to

Sivalayam Street in Bhavanipuram. Accused and his wife

quarreled with each other and his wife went to her parents

house. Then accused came to her school, took her to his house

and stated that he would marry her and again committed rape

against her. He further threatened to kill her, if she stated the

same to her parents. She was not getting menstrual cycle about

past two months and had stomach pain on 23.04.2008. Hence,

her parents took her to hospital on 24.04.2008. Doctors stated

that she is carrying pregnancy of two months. Then her father

asked her what happened and she revealed the incident to her

father. Her father gave report to police on the same day at 6-30

P.M. At the time of offence, she was aged 14 years. She was

born on 11.05.1993.

28) P.W.3 is a neghbour, who testified the fact that he

saw the accused and victim talking with each other by sitting

side by side and later he came to know about the offence

committed by the accused on the victim and that P.W.2 got

conceived. P.W.2 was aged about 14 years at the time of

offence. This is the evidence of P.W.3.

29) Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is believable. To decide the same, it is

necessary to look into the cross examination part.

30) Coming to the cross examination of P.W.1, he

deposed that his daughter (L.W.2) also stated that accused

placed cloth containing stupefying substance before her nose

and then committed rape on her. It is true that he did not state

so either in his complaint or in his statement before the police.

He denied that they entered into compromise with the accused

in the presence of S. Ramesh Babu and N. Venkata Reddy,

Inspector of Police. It is true that he did not state in the report

or before the police that his daughter was suffering with

stomach ache on 23.04.2008. They asked the mother of the

accused about the incident, as the father of accused was in

Rajahmundry Central Jail. He denied that he is deposing false.

31) P.W.2 during cross examination deposed that she

studied in Urdu School from I class to X class. Jaheda, wife of

the accused, also studied along with her in the same school. She

does not know whether Muslim can marry four or five times as

per their custom. She deposed in cross examination that

accused placed stupefying substance on a cloth and placed it

before her nose, as such, she was in unconscious state. She

informed the police about the stupefying substance. She raised

cries, but there was no one in the house. She is not willing to

marry the accused now. Accused came to his house after 4-00

P.M. She denied that she proposed marriage with the accused

even before his marriage with Jaheda. She does not know the

reason for her stomach ache, as such, she did not reveal the

pain to the doctor. It is true that she did not state the

commission of offence by the accused for a period of three

months to her parents. She does not know whether the accused

offered Rs.50,000/- to her father in the presence of Sub-

Inspector of Police and his father insisted them to pay

Rs.1,00,000/- and as the accused failed to pay it, her father

gave complaint. She denied that accused is not the actual

person for causing her pregnancy. She denied that she liked the

accused very much, but, as the amount was not settled, a false

case was filed against the accused.

32) As seen from the cross examination part of P.Ws.1

and 2, accused did not venture to put forth any suggestion

before P.Ws.1 and 2 that he did not have sexual intercourse

with the victim. Curiously, the learned defence counsel before

the Court below at the time of arguments advanced a contention

that victim girl consented to the sexual intercourse with the

accused, as she fell love with him. It is evident from the

judgment of the Court below at para No.17 in page No.9. Apart

from this, the accused got elicited negative answers against him

in cross examination. According to P.W.1, at the time of

commission of offence, accused placed a cloth with some foreign

material before the nose of P.W.2 and committed rape. It is to

be noticed that the answers that are spoken in the cross

examination of P.W.1, need not be mentioned either in Ex.P.1 or

before police. They cannot be taken as omissions. It is the

accused, who elicited the above answer from P.W.1. Even he

got elicited above answer from P.W.2. Apart from this, accused

came up with a suggestion before P.Ws.1 and 2 that there was a

compromise for settlement of amount to a tune of Rs.50,000/-

and as the father of victim insisted Rs.1,00,000/-, it could not

be materialized. Now, it is for the accused to explain what made

him to make a proposal for compromise proposing to pay a sum

of Rs.50,000/- to the victim.

33) It is not a case where the antecedents of P.Ws.1 and

2 are in question. P.W.1 and 2 have no questionable

antecedents. In the Indian background of a society, it is rather

improbable that an unmarried girl like P.W.2 would come and

depose that a particular person committed rape on her for no

fault of her. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 remained unasked

during the course of cross examination. P.W.3 spoken to the

close affinity between the accused and P.W.2 and claimed that

subsequently he came to know about the offence in question.

Apart from this, accused got suggested to P.W.2 that he liked

the accused very much, but, as the amount was not settled, a

false case was foisted against the accused.

34) It is to be noticed that accused posed a question

during the time of cross examination of P.W.2 that whether she

is willing to marry the accused now, for which she replied in

negative. All these goes to show that there is any amount of

truth in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Their evidence is not

shaked during the course of cross examination. This Court has

no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2, who

was aged about 14 years at the time of offence in question.

35) Now, coming to Section 375 of the I.P.C., as on the

date of offence, Section 375 clause sixth runs that a man is said

to commit rape, if he has sexual intercourse with a woman, with

or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

36) Coming to the evidence adduced by the prosecution,

there is categorical evidence of P.W.1, who learnt about the

incident by P.W.2 and the solitary evidence of P.W.2, whose

evidence is trustworthy believable. The evidence of P.W.2 is

inspiring any amount of evidence in the mind of the Court. So,

in my considered view, the evidence on record proves the fact

that accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.2, who was aged

about 14 years at the time of offence in question, which

amounts to rape. Further the evidence would prove that

accused also made a false promise to P.W.2 to marry her and

again committed sexual intercourse after his wife left from his

house on account of certain disputes. Now, coming to the

medical evidence on record, there is evidence of P.W.5, who

examined the victim and opined that victim is carrying 10 weeks

pregnancy and Ultrasound Scan confirmed. Ex.P.7 is the wound

certificate issued by P.W.5. Even accused got reported cross

examination Nil before P.W.5.

37) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the

considered view that the prosecution before the learned

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, categorically proved

that the accused committed rape against P.W.2, who was aged

about 14 years at the time of offence in question and further

committed sexual intercourse with false promise to marry her.

38) The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Vijayawada, as seen from the judgment rightly believed the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and took into consideration the medical

evidence and other evidence and ultimately came to a

conclusion that the prosecution proved the charges under

Section 376 and 417 of I.P.C.

39) In the light of the above, I see no grounds to

interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Vijayawada.

40) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

41) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately

under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court

to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall

take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against

the appellant (accused) in S.C.No.224 of 2008, dated

17.03.02010 and to report compliance to this Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 15.12.2022.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. APPEAL NO.506 OF 2010

Date: 15.12.2022

PGR