Kerala High Court
Jayapalan vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2024
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 165 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2017 IN SC NO.163 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2:
1 JAYAPALAN, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN, ARANDAPALLAM, THEKKEDESOM,
NALLEPPILLY.
2 RAVEENDRAN @ BABY, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. REKKAPPAN, CHERIYAKANAKKANPARA,
CHITTUR.
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
(CRIME NO.131/2009 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION),
PALAKKAD DISTRICT).
OTHER PRESENT:
Sri.E.C.Bineesh, P.P.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.5.2024, THE COURT ON 11.06.2024, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.165 of 2019
-: 2 :-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.165 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
Accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.163 of 2011 on the files
of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palakkad, are
the appellants in the appeal. They stand convicted and
sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The victim in the case is one Prasad. He died
due to an incised penetrating injury sustained to his neck in an
occurrence that took place on 26.03.2009 at a place called
Erissery. Although the victim was taken to ESAF Hospital,
Kozhinjampara immediately after the occurrence, he
succumbed to his injury on the way. A case was registered by
Chittur Police on the following day on the basis of a statement
given by one Velumani. The investigation in the case revealed
that it was the accused who caused the death of the victim. A
final report was accordingly filed in the case. The accusation
against the accused in the final report was that on 26.03.2009
at about 10.p.m., while the first informant Velumani and his
friends were sitting in a car at Erissery, the first accused came
to the said spot in a motor cycle with the second accused on
its pillion and assaulted Velumani; that when Velumani resisted
the attack on him, the first accused attempted to hack him
with the sword carried by him; that the victim who came out of
the car in the meanwhile prevented the first accused from
hacking Velumani; that the first accused then shouted to the
second accused to hack the victim to death and that the
second accused then hacked the victim on the left side of his
neck with the sword carried by him. It was alleged in the final
report that it was on account of the enmity the first accused
had towards Velumani for assaulting his friends and abusing
him, the accused caused the death of the deceased.
3. On the accused being committed to trial, the
Court of Session framed charges against them to which they
pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 28
witnesses as PWs 1 to 28 and proved through them 41
documents as Exts.P1 to P41. MOs 1 to 15 are the material
objects in the case. When the incriminating circumstances
brought out in evidence were put to the accused in terms of
the provisions contained under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (the Code), they denied the same. The
Court of Session, thereupon, on a consideration of the
evidence on record, held that the accused are guilty of the
offences for which they were charged, convicted and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence
punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The
accused are aggrieved by their conviction and sentence and
hence this appeal.
4. The point that falls for consideration is
whether the conviction and the sentence imposed on the
accused are sustainable in law.
5. Heard Adv.S.Rajeev for the accused and
E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Elaborate arguments have been advanced by
the learned counsel for the accused. It is unnecessary to refer
to the same now, for we propose to deal with each and every
argument, after referring to the evidence let in by the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. It is suffice to
indicate at this stage that the attempt of the learned counsel
was to establish that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the complicity of the accused in the crime.
7. Before taking note of the evidence, it is
necessary to consider the question whether the case on hand
is a homicide. PW20 was the doctor who conducted the post-
mortem examination on the body of the deceased. PW20 noted
only three ante-mortem injuries, of which the fatal injury,
according to PW20, was an incised penetrating wound
sustained to the root of neck. PW20 described the said injury
in his evidence thus:
"Incised penetrating would 6.5x2cms, oblique on left side of
root of neck and shoulder, front inner end 6 cm outer to
midline and 3cm above collarbone. The back outer end was
on left shoulder and was sharply cut, front inner end was
blunt. It had cut the neck muscles, cervical pleura, back
aspect of clavicle (0.8x0.2x0.5cm), partially cut the
Subclavian artery and brachial plexus and entered the chest
cavity behind the first rib (4x0.5cm). It had cut the apex of
left lung (2x0.5x1.5cm). The wound had a total minimum dept
of 4 cm and was directed downwards and backwards, left
chest cavity contained 100 ml of fluid blood and 350 gms of
blood clots."
Nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of the said
witness to cast any doubt on the veracity of the evidence
tendered by PW20 that it was the said injury that caused the
death of the victim. Needless to say, the prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt that the death was a
homicide.
8. Let us now consider the evidence. The witness
who was examined in the case as PW1 is none other than the
first informant Velumani. PW1 is a taxi driver. PW1 deposed
that on the date of occurrence, he along with his friends had a
plan to watch a movie and while he was proceeding to
Kozhinjampara for the said purpose in a car with his friends
namely, the deceased and PWs 4 to 6, he received an abusive
phone call from the first accused as he was nearing his house.
PW1 deposed that he then stopped the car near the house of
one Chenthamara and alighted from the car. PW1 deposed that
when he asked the first accused as to the reason for abusing
him over telephone, the first accused was questioning PW1 as
to the reason why PW1 assaulted the son of Chenthamara,
near whose house the car was parked. PW1 deposed that by
the time, the first accused reached that place in a motor bike
along with another person. According to PW1, the first accused
was riding the motor bike and the person accompanied him
sitting on its pillion. PW1 deposed that the first accused then
started assaulting him. The first accused fisted first on his
chest, then hit on his left cheek and kicked on his waist. PW1
deposed that in the meanwhile the deceased came out of the
car and questioned the first accused for having assaulted PW1.
It was deposed by PW1 that while so, the first accused
attempted to hack PW1 using a sword. It was the version of
PW1 that the deceased then prevented the first accused from
hacking PW1 by holding on the right hand of the first accused
in which he held the sword. PW1 deposed that the first accused
then gave a kick to the deceased and even though the
deceased fell down on account of the impact of the kick, the
deceased did not leave hold of the hand of the first accused. It
was deposed by PW1 that the first accused then shouted to the
second accused to hack the deceased to death and the second
accused immediately hacked the deceased on the left side of
the neck of the deceased. It was deposed by PW1 that when he
and others made hue and cry watching the attack on the
deceased, the accused fled from the scene with the weapons,
towards Kuttipalam direction. PW1 identified the accused as
also MO1 series as the swords brought by them to the scene.
The stand taken by PW1 in his evidence was that the
altercation he had with the son of Chenthamara was the cause
of the occurrence.
9. PW4 is a person who was running a tea shop.
PW4 deposed that on the date of occurrence, while he was
proceeding to watch a movie with PW1 and others, when the
car was about to reach near the house of PW1, PW1 received
an abusive phone call and the car was accordingly stopped.
Following the exchange of verbal abuse between PW1 and the
first accused, the car was then stopped a little ahead of the
house of PW1. It was deposed by PW4 that PW1 then came out
of the car and by that time, two persons came in a motor cycle
from behind and stopped in front of the car. It was deposed by
PW4 that the first accused who came to the scene then in the
motor cycle fisted PW1 on his chest and also hit him on his
right cheek. It was also deposed by PW4 that the deceased
then came out of the car and caught hold of the hand of the
first accused. The first accused then shouted to the person
who came along with him to kill the deceased and the said
person accordingly hacked the deceased on his left shoulder
using a sword. It was deposed by PW4 that he and others who
were sitting inside the car then came out of the car and by the
time, the first accused and the person who accompanied him,
left the scene in the motor cycle after threatening them by
brandishing the sword. PW4 clarified in his chief-examination
that both the first accused and the person who accompanied
him in the motor cycle carried swords with them. PW4
identified the accused and also MO1 series swords as the
swords carried by the accused. PW5 is another taxi driver. PW5
also deposed that he was with PW1 and others in the car when
the occurrence took place. The sequence of events deposed by
PW5 was more or less on similar lines of the evidence tendered
by PW4. PW5 also identified the accused and also MO1 series
as the swords carried by the accused at the time of
occurrence. PW6 is another driver. PW6 deposed that he knows
PW4 and PW5 and that he was with PW1 in the car when the
occurrence took place. PW6 also gave evidence more or less
on the similar lines of the evidence tendered by the above
witnesses. PW6 also identified the accused and MO1 series as
the swords carried by the accused at the time of occurrence.
10. PW7 is one Lijith. Even though he was hostile
to the prosecution, he deposed that on the previous day of the
occurrence, at about 8.30 p.m., PW1 assaulted Jiju, the son of
Chenthamara in front of his house. PW24 is Jiju. PW24 also
turned hostile to the prosecution. Nevertheless PW24 deposed
that he knows PW1 and that there was an altercation between
him and PW1 at about 7 p.m. on the previous day of the
occurrence. According to PW24, while he was sitting along with
others in front of his house on that night, PW1 came there in a
car and stopped the said car right in front of his house. It was
deposed by PW24 that when he asked PW1 as to the reason for
stopping the car in front of his house, PW1 caught hold of the
collar of the shirt of PW24 and hit him with his hand. PW24 also
deposed that PW1 consumed liquor after parking his car there
and created problems there, before as well.
11. PW28 is the police officer who conducted the
investigation in the case. PW28 deposed, among others, that
he arrested the accused on 29.03.2009 and while the second
accused was being interrogated, he disclosed to PW28 that he
has kept two swords in the coconut garden located at
Malayandi Koundanur and when the second accused was taken
to that place, he took out MO1 series swords and handed over
the same to PW28 from the roof of a thatched shed in the
coconut garden of one Balakrishnan Nair. It was deposed by
PW28 that the same were recovered by him as per Ext.P15
Mahazar. Ext.P15(a) is the disclosure stated to have been
made by the second accused to PW28 which resulted in the
seizure of MO1 series swords.
12. It is trite that minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial
matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case,
shall not be a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in
its entirety. Similarly, mere marginal variations in the
statements of a witness cannot be taken as improvements, as
the same may be elaborations of the statement earlier made
by the witness. In other words, what is expected from the court
in such cases is that, an opinion about the credibility of the
witness must be formed and a finding as to whether his
deposition inspires confidence, must be recorded [See A.
Shankar v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 279]. Even
though there are trivial inconsistencies and other discrepancies
in the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 4 to 6 as regards the
core of the prosecution case that it was the second accused
who inflicted the fatal injury on the root of the neck and
shoulder of the deceased using MO1 sword in the course of the
altercation between the accused on one side and PW1 and the
deceased on the other side, according to us, there is absolutely
no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence tendered by
PWs 1 and 4 to 6. The said evidence is corroborated by the
evidence tendered by PW20, the doctor who conducted post-
mortem examination on the body of the deceased also. When
MO1 series swords were shown to PW20, he testified that the
fatal injury could be caused using the said weapons. When
PW20 was asked whether he could tell the court as to which
among MO1 series swords had been used to cause the fatal
injury, after inspecting both the weapons, it was opined by
PW20 that the fatal injury was one that could be caused by any
of the said weapons. The evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 4 to
6 is further corroborated by the evidence tendered by PW26,
the doctor who examined the deceased at ESAF Hospital,
Kozhinjampara also. PW26 deposed that the injury suffered by
the deceased is one that could be inflicted by weapons in the
nature of MO1 series.
13. Of course, even though the first accused is a
person who is known to the ocular witnesses, it has come out
from the materials that the second accused was not a person
with whom the witnesses had any previous acquaintance.
Inasmuch as there was no test identification parade to enable
PWs 1 and 4 to 6 to identify the second accused, one of the
main arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused
was that the identification of the second accused by PWs 1 and
4 to 6 in Court is not sufficient to establish the complicity of
the second accused in the crime. No doubt, in cases where
witnesses have no previous acquaintance with the accused, it
is only prudent that a test identification parade be conducted
to enable the investigating agency to satisfy that the persons
who are arrested on suspicion, are the real accused. But, at the
same time, inasmuch as the evidence as regards the test
identification parade is not substantive evidence, non-conduct
of the test identification parade will not be fatal in every case.
The acceptability of the evidence tendered by the prosecution
witnesses as regards the identification of the accused would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As
there was no test identification parade in the case on hand, a
doubt would naturally arise as to the identity of the second
accused. In this context, the evidence tendered by PW28, the
police officer who conducted the investigation assumes
importance. It was categorically deposed by PW28 that while
the second accused was being interrogated, the latter
disclosed to PW28 that he had kept two swords in the coconut
garden located at Malayandi Koundanur and when the second
accused was taken to the said place, the second accused took
out MO1 series swords and handed over the same to PW28
from the roof of a thatched shed in the coconut garden of one
Balakrishnan Nair. As already indicated, Ext.P15 is the mahazar
prepared by PW28 while effecting seizure of MO1 series
swords. The description of MO1 series swords as contained in
Ext.P15 mahazar shows that MO1 series are almost identical
and the only difference is that the length of one of the swords
is 61 cms and the other is 62cms. The description also
indicates that one among the swords contained a stain at the
time of effecting seizure. It appears from Ext.P39, forwarding
note and Ext.40 report of the Chemical Examiner that what
was forwarded for chemical examination was the sword that
contained a stain. Ext.P40 report of the Chemical Examiner
would show that the stain contained in MO1 sword is the stain
of human blood. When the evidence tendered by PW28 is
analysed in the backdrop of Ext.P40 report of the Chemical
Examiner, it can certainly be held that the second accused
knew the place where the sword containing human blood with
which the injury suffered by the deceased could be inflicted,
was concealed. In the light of the evidence tendered by PW28
and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, we are of
the view that there is no reason to doubt the evidence
tendered by PWs 1 and 4 to 6 as to the identity of the second
accused.
14. Let us now deal with the various contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the accused. It was brought
to our notice by the learned counsel that the First Information
Report contains particulars of the body inquest conducted after
the purported registration of the First Information Report as
also the name of the father of the deceased. According to the
learned counsel, it is thus clear that the First Information
Report is anti-timed and the first accused was arrayed as the
assailant in the First Information Report after gathering
information regarding the occurrence from other sources. It
was the argument of the learned counsel that in the
circumstances of the case, the prosecution case has to
collapse on that sole ground, for the very foundation of the
same has been shaken. The learned counsel has relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State
of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 and the judgment of this Court in
Ali @ Aali v. State of Kerala, 2015 KHC 720, in support of
the said argument. The First Information Report in the case
namely, Ext.P1 is seen registered at 3.00 a.m. on 27.03.2009.
As pointed out by the learned counsel, it contains the number
of the inquest report. Admittedly, the inquest was held only at
about 8.15 a.m. on 27.03.2009. If that be so, under normal
circumstances, the number of the inquest report would not
have been there in the First Information Report. PW28, the
investigating officer, on being questioned during cross-
examination about the said anomaly, gave a reply that
particulars of the next inquest number would be shown in the
First Information Report at times. PW28 was, however, not
questioned in cross-examination as regards the basis on which
the name of the father of the deceased was mentioned in the
First Information Report. PW23 was the Sub Inspector of Police
who registered the First Information Report after recording the
statement of PW1. It was PW23 who recorded the particulars of
the inquest as also the name of the father of the deceased in
the First Information Report. PW23 was not cross-examined by
the accused as to how the particulars in the inquest report as
also the name of the father of the deceased happened to be
recorded in the First Information Report. In the circumstances,
even though we do not accept the justification attributed by
PW28 for the presence of the particulars of the body inquest in
the First Information Report, merely on account of the fact that
the said particulars are endorsed in the First Information
Report, we are unable to hold that the First Information Report
was anti-timed.
15. The next argument of the learned counsel for
the accused was as regards the alleged contradictions in the
evidence tendered by PW1. It was pointed out by the learned
counsel that the specific case of PW1 in the First Information
Report was that the second accused alone had a weapon with
him, while in evidence, PW1 deposed that the first accused
was also holding a sword. It was also pointed out by the
learned counsel similarly that while giving the First Information
Statement, the stand taken by PW1 as regards the motive was
that the accused attacked him owing to the enmity they had
towards him for picking up a quarrel with one Jayaraj, whereas,
while giving evidence, the stand taken by PW1 as regards the
motive was totally different namely, the altercation PW1 had
with PW24. According to the learned counsel, in the light of
the said contradictions, the evidence tendered by PW1 is
totally unreliable. We are unable to accept this argument. The
real motive for a crime would be known only to the person who
commits the crime. The injured can only make inferences. The
inferences made by the injured may or may not be correct. As
such, the motive for the crime disclosed by PW1 in the First
Information Statement is nothing, but an inference made by
him. Merely for the reason that PW1 has made such an
inference in the FIR, the evidence tendered by him in court
cannot be rejected in toto. No doubt, in the First Information
Report, PW1 had not disclosed about the weapon carried by
the first accused and it was in evidence, that he disclosed the
same. It is trite that the First Information Statement need not
be an exhaustive narration of all the facts and details relating
to the offence reported, from the beginning to the end. What is
of significance is that the information given must disclose the
commission of a cognisable offence [See CBI v. Tapan Kumar
Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175]. As such, merely for the reason that
PW1 has not disclosed about the weapon carried by the first
accused in the First Information Statement, it cannot be said
that the evidence tendered by PW1 is unreliable. No
contradiction pertaining to the occurrence, in terms of the
proviso to Section 162(1) of the Code has been proved in the
evidence tendered by PW1 while the contradictions in the
evidence of PW1 that have been proved, do not pertain to the
occurrence at all. Inasmuch as no contradiction has been
brought out in the evidence of PW1 as regards the occurrence,
according to us, there is absolutely no impediment in accepting
the evidence of PW1.
16. It was vehemently argued by the learned
counsel for the accused that since the prosecution has failed to
establish the connection or relationship , if any, of the accused
with PW24 with the accused, the prosecution miserably failed
in proving the motive and the motive for the crime, in the
circumstances, remains to be a mystery. According to the
learned counsel, in the absence of any evidence to prove the
motive alleged, it cannot be said that the prosecution has
established their case beyond reasonable doubt. We do not
find any force in this argument as well. True, there is no
satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused had any
connection or relationship with either PW24 or PW27. But,
according to us, inasmuch as it was found that the prosecution
has proved, satisfactorily, the complicity of the second accused
in the crime through the ocular witnesses examined on the
side of the prosecution, the failure on the part of the
prosecution in proving the motive for the crime, in the facts of
this case, may not be of any significance.
17. It was also argued by the learned counsel for
the accused that inasmuch as the evidence tendered by PW28
as regards the recovery of MO1 series swords was not
supported by independent witnesses and there was
unexplained delay in producing the seized weapons in court,
no credence could be attributed to the evidence tendered by
PW28 in this regard. We are not impressed by this argument
also. In the context of recovery, what is admissible is the
evidence tendered by the investigating officer. The evidence of
independent witnesses would certainly lend corroboration to
the evidence tendered by the investigating officer. But merely
for the reason that there was no independent witness or the
witness who was cited to prove the recovery turned hostile, the
evidence tendered by the investigating officer cannot be
rejected, if it is otherwise acceptable. In the case on hand, we
do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by
the investigating officer. Similarly, no doubt that the delay in
producing the recovered material objects in court ought to be
explained by the investigating officer. As far as the present
case is concerned, it is seen that MO1 series swords were
though recovered based on the disclosure made by the second
accused on 29.03.2009, the same were produced before the
court only on 20.04.2009. On being cross-examined on the said
aspect, the explanation offered by PW28 was that until MO1
series swords were produced before the court, they were in his
safe custody and he retained the same, for it was necessary
for the purpose of investigation. All the material objects may
not be required for the purpose of investigation. But if a
material object is required for the said purpose, it is only
prudent for the investigating officer to file a report before the
court stating the purpose of retention of a recovered material
object. But it cannot be held as a proposition of law that
wherever there is delay in producing a material object, the
recovery would be vitiated, if a report explaining the reason for
delay is not filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. It all
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and in
the case on hand, we are unable to hold that on account of the
delay aforesaid, the recovery is vitiated.
18. Another argument of the learned counsel for
the accused is that it has come out from the evidence of the
witnesses examined to prove the occurrence, viz, PW1 and
PW4 to PW6 that the police detained the said witnesses in the
police station for about four days and the said fact creates a
strong suspicion as to the genuineness of the prosecution case.
No doubt, even though the investigating officer denied having
detained the occurrence witnesses in the police station, the
witnesses referred to by the learned counsel stated that they
were detained in the police station for a few days. Inasmuch
as it is found from the materials on record that the prosecution
has established beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the
accused, it is unnecessary to probe into the reason for
detaining the occurrence witnesses in the police station.
19. The next argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the accused is that the prosecution has failed to
make available the mobile call records and tower locations of
the mobile phones of PW1 and the first accused, to
substantiate its case that they were present at the scene of
occurrence at the relevant time. According to the learned
counsel, in a case of this nature, the non-production of the call
records and tower locations of the mobile phones of PW1 and
the first accused is fatal to the prosecution case. No doubt, the
same could have been produced by the prosecution to
reinforce its case that PW1 and the accused were present at
the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. But, the question
whether non-production of the said records would affect the
prosecution case, is one to be answered having regard to the
totality of the facts and circumstances of each case. Having
regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case on hand, we are unable to endorse the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that non-
production of the call records and tower locations of the mobile
phones of PW1 and the first accused, was fatal to the case on
hand.
20. It was also argued by the learned counsel for
the accused that the identity of the second accused was not
revealed by any person until the time of his arrest and there is
no material on record as to how the investigating officer
reached to the second accused. According to the learned
counsel, in all probability, the second accused must have been
arrayed as an accused in the case solely based on the
confession made by the first accused and if he was arrayed as
an accused on the said basis, the identification of the second
accused by the witnesses in court, is not free from reasonable
doubt. We do not think it necessary to delve deep into this
argument inasmuch as all the four eye witnesses to the
occurrence namely, PWs 1 and 4 to 6 consistently identified
the second accused as the assailant of the deceased and the
evidence tendered by the said witnesses in this regard has not
been discredited in any manner whatsoever. It is all the more
so since MO1 series swords have been recovered based on the
information furnished by the second accused. When
satisfactory materials are placed on record to establish the
complicity of an accused in a crime, it is unnecessary for the
court to go into the question as to how the investigating officer
reached to that accused in the case.
Needless to say, on an evaluation of the materials
on record, we do not find any infirmity in the findings rendered
by the Court of Session. The appeal, in the circumstances, is
liable to be dismissed and we do so.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE.
ds 30.05.2024
