Madras High Court
Chandran vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 July, 2023
2023/MHC/3468
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Orders Reserved On Orders Pronounced On
13.07.2023 27.07.2023
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
Chandran ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.721 of 2015) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for
records pertaining to the judgment, dated 07.03.2018, made in S.C.No.33 of
2016, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virdhunagar
District @ Srivilliputhur and set aside the same by allowing the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Poornachandran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
JUDGMENT
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/sole accused as against the
conviction and sentence, dated 07.03.2018, made in S.C.No.33 of 2016, by
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District @
Srivilliputhur.
2. The appellant / sole accused stood convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:-
Conviction under Sentence imposed
Section
u/s.341 I.P.C. To undergo one month simple imprisonment
u/s.294(b) I.P.C. To undergo two months simple imprisonment
u/s.302 I.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment
u/s.506(ii) I.P.C. To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment
The Trial Court further ordered the sentences to run concurrently and also
granted set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused/appellant
challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial
Court vide impugned judgment, has filed this Criminal Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, necessary for the
disposal of this criminal appeal, are as follows:-
3.1. The deceased in this case was one Murugesaraja. P.W.1 -
Venkatesan is his brother-in-law. The deceased Murugesaraja and his wife
Saraswathi Ammal were residing at Subbaraja Madam Street, Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District. Saraswathi Ammal died before commencement of
the trial. The appellant/accused in this case, is also the resident of the
aforesaid Street. P.W.2 – Ramaraj, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1,
purchased a land, which is adjacent to the accused's house, from one
Bharathi [P.W.5] before three years from the date of occurrence and the sale
deed has been registered by P.W.6 – Saraswathi, Sub-Registrar, on
22.08.2012 as Document No.6298/2012. P.W.7 – Shyam, who is the real
estate broker, helped P.W.2 for purchasing the said land from P.W.5.
3.2. One year prior to the occurrence, when P.W.2 started
construction in the said land purchased by him, a dispute arose between
P.W.2 and the appellant/accused. P.W.1 [brother-in-law of the deceased],
the deceased and his wife and the vendor of the land [P.W.5] pacified the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
dispute. Thereafter, the appellant/accused threatened P.W.1, deceased and
his wife. Subsequently, the appellant/accused gave a complaint against
P.W.2 before the Rajapalayam North Police Station. After enquiry, the said
complaint was closed.
3.3. Thereafter, on 19.11.2015 at about 11.30 a.m. when the deceased
was returning from the fair price shop, the appellant/accused waylaid the
deceased near the house of the deceased and attacked him with Aruval,
which is marked as M.O.1, on his head, near the left ear, left wrist, right
shoulder and right hand and thereby, caused the death of the deceased.
When P.W.1 - Venkatesan, P.W.2 - Ramaraj, Saraswathi Ammal, wife of the
deceased and sister of P.W.1, one Seethalakshmi [Wife of P.W.1],
Thayammal and a Mason present there, attempted to catch hold of the
appellant/accused, but he fled from the scene of occurrence. Immediately,
they took the deceased to the Rajapalayam Government Hospital, where
P.W.13 – Dr.Baskaran examined the deceased and declared him brought
dead and issued Ex.P.15 Accident Registrar. Thereafter, the wife the
deceased and P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint,
which is marked as Ex.P.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
3.4. P.W.12 – Viji, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police
Station, on receipt of the complaint under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime
No.721 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 and 506(ii)
of I.P.C. and forwarded the complaint [ExP.1] and the printed F.I.R.
[Ex.P.13] to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
3.5. P.W.15 – Rajendran, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the
complaint [Ex.P.1] and F.I.R. [Ex.P.13], took up investigation and
proceeded to the occurrence place and in the presence of P.W.8 –
Malarvizhi, Village Administrative Officer, and Village Assistant –
Subramanian, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, which are
marked as Exs.P.3 and P.19 respectively and recovered blood-stained
cement plaster pieces [M.O.2] and ordinary cement plaster pieces [M.O.3]
under Ex.P.4 Recovery Mahazar. He also recovered Cycle [M.O.4],
Wedding Thamboolam Bag [M.O.7], Vermicelli Pouch [M.O.5] and Toor
Dal [M.O.6] under Ex.P.5 Recovery Mahazar. Thereafter, he conducted
inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.20 – Inquest
report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
3.6. P.W.13 – Dr.Baskaran, conducted postmortem on 19.11.2015 at
05.00 p.m., and gave a postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.14
and also gave his final opinion [Ex.P.16] stating that the deceased would
appear to have died 6 to 8 hours prior to autopsy, due to multiple injuries
sustained by him all over the body, particularly damage to the brain, veins,
shock and haemorrhage. He also confirmed that the injuries inflicted was
by using Aruval.
3.7. P.W.11 – Anandhakumar, Grade – I Police Constable, attached to
the said Police Station, was present during postmortem and received the
clothes of the deceased and handed over the same to P.W.15, who recovered
the same under Form-91 and thereafter, handed over the body of the
deceased to his relatives.
3.8. Thereafter, on 21.11.2015 at 09.00 a.m., P.W.15 arrested the
appellant/accused in front of Avarampatti Thevar Statue in the presence of
P.W.8 – Malarvizhi, Village Administrative Officer and Subramani, Village
Assistant and on enquiry, the appellant/accused voluntarily gave confession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P.6 is the
admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant/accused.
Pursuant to the same, P.W.15 recovered M.O.1 – Aruval under a cover of
Mahazar Ex.P.7 from a bush near Vinayagar Temple. Thereafter, he
recovered the shirt of the appellant/accused [M.O.8] and Pant [M.O.9] from
the house of the appellant/accused under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.8. Then,
P.W.15 made a request [Ex.P.17] to the Court for forwarding the material
objects for chemical examination.
3.9. Thereafter, P.W.14 – Swami Adiyaal, Head Clerk attached to the
Court sent the material objects to the Forensic Laboratory for examination
under Exs.P.17 and P.18 Requisition Letters.
3.10. Then, P.W.9 – Vairamuthu, Scientific Officer, examined the
Material Objects [M.O.1 to M.O.9] and gave Ex.P.9 – Biological Report
that except in M.O.1 – Aruval and M.O.3 - Ordinary cement plaster pieces,
there were bloodstains in other material objects. Thereafter, P.W.9 sent the
bloodstained material objects to the Forensic Laboratory, Madurai, and also
sent M.O.2 – Bloodstained cement plaster pieces and M.O.3 - Ordinary
cement plaster pieces to the Forensic Laboratory, Chennai. As per Ex.P.10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
– Serologist Report, human blood of 'B' Group found on M.O.2 – Cement
plaster pieces, Shirt [Item No.3], Inner wear [Item No.4], Dhoti [Item No.5]
M.O.8 – Shirt and M.O.9 – Pant. Further, the Scientific Officer, Chennai,
examined M.O.2 and M.O.3 – Cement plaster pieces and gave Ex.P.11
Report, that both were found to be similar to each other.
3.11. Thereafter, P.W.15 examined P.W.10 – Ponraj, Special
Tahsildar, Sattur, about the rain on the date of occurrence. He confirmed
that there was a rain on 19.11.2015 to 21.11.2015 and his report is marked
as Ex.P.12. Finally, on completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid charge
sheet against the appellant/accused.
3.12. Thereafter, the learned Principal District Sessions Judge,
Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur, took it on file in S.C.No.33 of 2016
and issued summons to the appellant/accused and on his appearance, framed
charges under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and questioned
the appellant/accused and he pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled
against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
3.13. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined the
witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20, as well as
M.Os.1 to 9.
3.14. The appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313[1][b]
Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against
him in the evidences rendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false.
The appellant/accused did not file any documents nor let in any oral
evidence.
3.15. The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidences and other materials, convicted and sentenced
the appellant/accused as stated above and hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the motive
alleged by the prosecution has not been substantiated as deposed by P.W.2,
the Trial Court has completely overlooked that aspect. Secondly, the
appellant/accused cannot have any motive at all as alleged by the
prosecution for the reason that P.W.2 originally purchased a land adjacent to
the land belonging to the appellant/accused from P.W.5, almost 3 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
prior to the occurrence and when P.W.2 started proceeding to construct a
house, damaging a Wall, encroaching into the land belonging to the
appellant/accused, there was a wordy quarrel in the process and the
deceased intervened. Later, Police complaint given, both agreed to approach
Civil Court for the dispute. This dispute is projected as motive for the fatal
attack on 19.11.2015, which is without any basis.
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
motive allegedly placed before the Trial Court has not been substantiated by
the prosecution. When P.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, clearly
and explicitly deposed before the Trial Court that there was no motive, the
prosecution has come out with a case that there is motive between the
accused and the deceased.
4.2. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there were
cut injuries said to have been caused by M.O.1/Aruval, which was
recovered after 2 days from the date of arrest. P.W.13 Doctor's evidence
does not state that the deceased sustained cut injuries caused by M.O.1,
since all the injuries are pierce injuries. The vital aspect has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
properly dealt with by the Trial Court and the findings and conclusion
arrived at by the Trial Court certainly requires reconsideration by this Court.
4.3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though
the occurrence was said to have taken place on 19.11.2015 at 11.30 a.m., the
deceased was taken to the hospital only at 12.30 p.m., in an Ambulance and
F.I.R. has been lodged only at 01.15 p.m. on the same day, even though the
Police Station is situated only 5 minutes distance from the scene of
occurrence. The reason for said delay was not explained.
4.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the
prosecution, the deceased attacked the hands of the deceased with Aruval
[M.O.1], but no injury was found on the hands of the deceased as per
Ex.P.14 Postmortem Report. He further submitted that though in Ex.P.7
Seizure Mahazar of Aruval [M.O.1], it is mentioned that bloodstains were
found in M.O.1, P.W.9 Vairamuthu, Scientific Officer, in his evidence,
deposed that no bloodstains were found in M.O.1 - Aruval.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
4.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.3 in his
evidence, stated that he has not seen the occurrence and only upon hearing
about the same from the wife of the deceased, he came to know about the
occurrence. He further submitted that P.W.5 in his chief examination stated
he has not seen the occurrence, however, contrarily, in his cross-
examination, he deposed that when the deceased was taken to Hospital, the
Police were present.
4.6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no Police
complaint regarding the earlier scuffle and complaint lodged by the
deceased were produced. If is further submitted that though six
eyewitnesses projected in this case, except for P.W.1 and P.W.2, close
relatives of the deceased, who are interested witnesses, no other
independent witnesses present in the scene of occurrence examined.
P.W.13 Postmortem Doctor deposed that Aruval was shown to him on
18.12.2015 by P.W.15 Investigating Officer. P.W.14 Head Clerk of the
Court, in his evidence, deposed that the properties of the case including
Aruval [M.O.1] were produced before the Court on 24.11.2015 and
thereafter, sent to Forensic Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
4.7. The learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court passed
the impugned judgment based on surmises and conjectures, when no offence
has been committed and the same is also not proved. Viewed from any
angle, the judgment of the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and hence, the
same is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State,
submitted that it is not true to say that the motive placed before the Trial
Court was not established for the reason that even though P.W.2/brother-in-
law of P.W.1, has deposed that there was no motive, the appellant/accused
cannot get away from other evidences placed in support of the prosecution
case, the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant/accused in
respect of the civil dispute, the deceased who is a relative of P.W.2,
intervened to avoid the altercation between P.W.2 and appellant/accused.
When P.W.2 proceeded to put up construction, the deceased objected,
picked up quarrel and lodged Police complaint. The deceased intervened,
supported P.W.2, during the quarrel, and attended Police Station during
enquiry. The appellant/accused developed grudge over the deceased, abused
him often, in the process, he was done away by the appellant/accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are eyewitnesses, who have clearly given evidence about
the motive and the appellant/accused attacked the deceased with Aruval
[M.O.1]. The complaint [Ex.P.1] given by the wife of the deceased was
written and attested by P.W.1. The delay in lodging the complaint was for
the reason, the deceased was immediately taken to the Government
Hospital, Rajapalayam, where P.W.13, recorded the death with time in Ex.P.
15 Accident Register. Thereafter, P.W.1 and his sister came to the Police
Station and lodged the complaint. P.W.12 registered F.I.R. P.W.15 took up
investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation
Mahazar, examined the witnesses in the presence of P.W.8 V.A.O.,
thereafter, conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P.20 is the
Inquest Report. In the report, the name of the appellant/accused, and
eyewitnesses are recorded. The appellant/accused was arrested on
21.11.2015. On his confession, M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.8 Shirt and M.O.9 and
Pant were recovered. Thus, cogent evidence was produced before the Trial
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
5.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that
P.W.13/Dr.Baskaran confirms that there were injuries, which are sufficient
to cause the death of the deceased. Further, the bloodstains found in M.O.8
and M.O.9 the clothes of the appellant/accused tallies with the blood group
of the deceased. P.W.9 confirms the same by Ex.P.10 Serologist Report.
5.3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that
sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary were placed before the Trial
Court, which, on proper appreciation, found to be true, proved by the
prosecution and convicted the appellant/accused.
5.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or
straightjacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. In assessing
the value of the evidence of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the 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, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on
its own merits, where the accused, raise a definite plea or puts 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.
5.5. In support of the above contentions, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 883.
5.6. In fine, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that the appellant/accused has not given any reason for the
presence of blood in M.O.8 and M.O.9. The Trial Court, on cogent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
convincing reasons and based on oral and documentary evidence, found the
appellant/accused guilty of the charges levelled against him and rightly
convicted and sentenced him and, therefore, no interference is called for
with the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below.
6. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and also perused the oral and documentary evidence, to which its
attention was drawn.
7. In this case, the occurrence is on 19.11.2015 at about 11.30 a.m.
P.W.1, his wife Seethalakshmi and PW2, came and met Saraswathi Ammal,
wife of the deceased, who was conversing with Thayammal. P.W.2 is
another sister's son of P.W.1, who purchased 2 cents of plot from P.W.5,
three years prior to the occurrence through P.W.7. The sale deed was
registered as Document No.6298/2012 by P.W.6 Sub-Registrar,
Rajapalayam.
8. One year prior to the occurrence, i.e., somewhere during the year
2014, P.W.2 made arrangements for construction, the appellant/accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
made objections, stopped construction, as there is encroachment and
damage to his Wall, a quarrel arose, it was P.W.1, his wife Seethalakshmi,
deceased, his wife Saraswathi Ammal and P.W.5 intervened. Thereafter, the
appellant lodged a complaint, again, the deceased and his wife went to the
Police Station along with P.W.2, during enquiry, there was heated exchange
of words between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant
threatened and warned the deceased would be done away. Thereafter,
whenever the appellant saw the deceased and his wife, they were abused.
Hence, there was motive, which is proved by the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.5.
9. On 19.11.2015, the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 along with
Saraswathi Ammal and others is recorded in the complaint Ex.P.1. In this
case, Saraswathi Ammal died during the pendency of trial, hence, she could
not be examined. P.W.1 has written the complaint, giving sequence of
attack made by the appellant/accused using Aruval [M.O.1], the attempt of
the deceased to save himself, the brutal attack made by the
appellant/accused on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased.
The complaint written by P.W.1 on the dictation of Saraswathi Ammal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
P.W.1 identified the signature of his sister and also attested the complaint.
Since the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, by
Ambulance, there was some delay in lodging the complaint. It is natural
conduct of a normal human to rush the injured person to the hospital first
instead of leaving him at the place of occurrence to die. P.W.13 Doctor
attached to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, on examination, issued
Accident Register Ex.P.15, which is recorded at 12.15 p.m. Thereafter,
P.W.1 along with his sister, wife of the deceased went to the Police Station
and lodged the complaint. P.W.12 Sub Inspector of Police received the
complaint, registered F.I.R. [Ex.P.13] at 13.15 hours, forwarded the same to
the Court and higher officials. P.W.15 Investigating Officer, on receipt of
the F.I.R., visited the scene of occurrence, in the presence of P.W.8 V.A.O.,
prepared Ex.P.3 Observation Mahazar, Ex.P19 Rough Sketch, seized the
articles present in the scene of occurrence namely, M.O.2, M.O.3, M.O.4,
M.O.5, M.O.6 and M.O.7 under the cover of Mahazars Exs.P.4 and P.5.
Thereafter, he visited the Hospital and conducted inquest between 15.45
hours and 17.00 hours. The Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P.20. In the
Inquest Report, the name of the accused, his overt act, weapon used and the
presence of eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 are recorded. Thereafter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
body was sent for postmortem. P.W.13 conducted postmortem and gave
Ex.P.14 Postmortem Report and his final opinion is marked as Ex.P.16.
From the Postmortem Report, it is seen that the injuries are primarily on the
head and piercing injury, fractures on the skull, damages on the brain, cuts
on the veins and injury on the right hand and left wrist found and recorded.
The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are in conformity with the
evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no reason to disbelieve
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
10. The appellant in this case was arrested on 21.11.2015 in the
presence of P.W.8. The admissible portion of confession Ex.P.6 reveal the
disclosure of fact, recovery and seizure of M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.8 and M.O.9
Shirt and Pant of the appellant/accused. The seized articles from the scene
of occurrence, dress of the deceased and the articles seized from the
appellant/accused were sent to forensic examination. P.W.9 Scientific
Officer from the Forensic Department, by his reports Exs.P.9 to P.11
confirmed the presence of human blood in M.O.2, M.O.8 and M.O.9 apart
from the Shirt and Pant and inner wear of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
11. The presence of human blood group 'B' on the shirt M.O.8 and
Pant M.O.9 of the appellant/accused is in conformity with the evidence of
the eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. The grouping of blood based on
bloodstained gauze collected from the deceased. There is no explanation by
the appellant/accused in this regard. The absence of detection of
bloodstains in M.O.1 Aruval will noway affect the case of prosecution,
since on the date of occurrence there was rain, but what was the time and
duration not questioned and how it would affect the prosecution case,
nothing elicited.
12. The collection and seizure of articles are all recorded by
contemporary documents, produced before the Trial Court, forwarded to the
Forensic Department, which are in conformity with the ocular evidence and
prosecution case. The Trial Court had considered all these facts and points
raised by the appellant/accused and rightly convicted him. This Court does
not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court and the
same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
The sentence imposed on the appellant was suspended, pending disposal of
this appeal and therefore, bail bond executed by him shall stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
cancelled/terminated. The respondent/Investigating Officer, as well as the
Trial Court are directed to take expeditious steps to secure the custody of
the appellant/accused for the purpose of undergoing the remaining period of
sentence.
Index : Yes (M.S.R., J.) (M.N.K., J.)
Internet: Yes 27.07.2023
Neutral Citation: Yes
smn2
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Pre-delivery judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.585 of 2019
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
