Madras High Court
P.Kuppuraj vs State Rep. By on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 09.07.2024
Pronounced on 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
P.Kuppuraj ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.383/2019
Dasthagir ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.892/2019
Vs.
State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Sevappettai Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.194/2017) ... Respondent in both the appeals
Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment passed by the learned
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.303 of 2017
dated 25.04.2019 and allow the Criminal Appeals.
For Appellant in Crl.A.No.383/2019 : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
For Appellant in Crl.A.No.892/2019 : Mr.R.Sankara Subbu
Page 1 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH,J.
The first appellant herein is the first accused and the second
appellant is the second accused. The appellants have been convicted and
sentenced to the imprisonment, through the judgment of the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem passed in S.C.No.303 of
2017 dated 25.04.2019, in the following manner:-
Accused Conviction Sentence
A1 under Section 294(B) 3 months rigorous imprisonment;
IPC
under Section 302 Life imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3
IPC
months rigorous imprisonment;
under Section 506(ii) 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
IPC
A2 under Section 302 Life imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3
IPC
months rigorous imprisonment.
A3 – Umaiyaan @ Sakhinsa was acquitted from all the criminal charges.
The sentences of imprisonments were ordered to run concurrently for
both the appellants.
2. The aforesaid judgment of the Sessions Court is put under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
challenge by P.Kuppuraj/A1 in Crl.A.No.383 of 2019 and Dasthagir/A2
in Crl.A.No.892 of 2019. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
appeals are addressed according to their rank in the Trial Court.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, these
appeals are disposed of jointly.
4. The case in brief is that owing to a wordy quarrel touching upon
the non-payment of a loan amount of Rs.15,000/- by the deceased
Srinivasan, Kuppuraj/A1, Dasthagir/A2 and Umaiyan @ Sakhinsa/A3
had brutally attacked Srinivasan with deadly weapons leading to his
death.
5.1. The prosecution's case before the Trial Court was that the
deceased Srinivasan had borrowed Rs.15,000/- from Kuppuraj/A1 about
6 months back, owing to which, there was enmity among them, which led
to the incident.
5.2. On 30.05.2017, at about 1.00 P.M., when P.W.1 and P.W.2
were consuming liquor behind Moongappadi Girls' Higher Secondary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
School, the deceased had also come there with one quarter liquor bottle.
At about 2 P.M., A1 to A3 also came there with liquor bottles. At that
time, A1 asked the deceased to return his Rs.15,000/-, due to which, a
wordy quarrel arose between them, resulting in exchange of bad and
filthy words.
5.3. Enraged over this, A1 assaulted the deceased Srinivasan with a
machete (aruval) on the right side of his neck. He then asked A2 to finish
him of and A2 took his knife and assaulted the deceased on the back of
his head. When A1 again assaulted the deceased, his knife had
accidentally cut the right thumb of A2. When the deceased started to run
from the scene, A3 had attacked on the back of his head with an iron rod.
When P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to stop the accused, A1 had caused a death
threat with his weapon to them.
5.4. While running, the deceased fell down under a peepal tree near
Kaliamman Temple. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 followed Srinivasan, they
found him dead in a pool of blood.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
5.5. P.W.1 had then called Murali – P.W.4 and informed him about
the incident. Thereafter, when P.W.1 lifted the deceased, the blood stuck
on P.W.1's lungi. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Shevapet Police
Station and gave a written complaint, based on which, an F.I.R. came to
be registered against all the accused for the offences under Sections
294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of IPC.
5.6. The Investigating Officer – P.W.19 had then conducted the
investigation and filed a final report against all the three accused for the
same offences. All the accused were produced before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.3 and the copies of the final report and other documents
were served on them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was then
committed to the Sessions Court, which was taken on file as S.C.No.303
of 2017. The Sessions Court had framed the charges against A1 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 302 & 506(ii) of IPC and the charges for
the offences under Section 302 r/w. 34 and 506(ii) of IPC against A2 and
A3. When the incriminating portions of the charges were read over and
explained to all the accused, they denied the same as false and pleaded
that they were 'not guilty'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
6. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had
examined 19 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Exs.P.1 to
P.37, apart from the material objects M.O.1 to M.O.19 before the Trial
Court. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidences
were let in.
7.1. P.W.1 – Ranjithkumar and P.W.2 – Salaam are cousins of the
deceased and they were examined as eyewitnesses to the incident.
According to them, on 30.05.2017 at about 2.00 P.M., when both of them
were consuming liquor along with the deceased, behind Moongappadi
Girls' Higher Secondary School, A1 to A3 had also come there with their
liquor bottles. When A1 demanded the deceased to refund his
Rs.15,000/-, a wordy quarrel using bad language was exchanged between
them and consequently A1 to A3 attacked the deceased with deadly
weapons. The deceased while running from the scene of occurrence fell
down under the peepal tree near Kaliamman Temple and died on the spot.
P.W.1 had then given a complaint (Ex.P1) with the help of P.W.2 before
the Shevapet Police Station. Both their statements on the incident are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
cogent and corroborates with each other.
7.2. P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer, who went to the scene of
occurrence and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He then
seized P.W.1's blood stained lungi (M.O.1); machete (M.O.2) used by A1;
knife (M.O.3) used by A2; iron knife (M.O.4) used by A3.
7.3. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased, who speaks about the enmity
between the deceased and A1 with regard to non-payment of the loan
amount of Rs.15,000/- by the deceased and that she had gone to the scene
of occurrence, after she received a message from the deceased's uncle's
son Murali – P.W.4.
7.4. P.W.5 is the shop owner near Kaliamman temple, who saw the
deceased coming from the scene of occurrence and falling down under
the peepal tree.
7.5. P.W.6 – Varadaraj is the Village Administrative Officer, who
had gone to the scene of occurrence at 4.00 P.M. at the request of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
Police. Therein, he had witnessed the Investigating Officer preparing the
observation mahazar (Ex.P2) at the place where the body of the deceased
was found. From there, the Investigating Officer had seized 2 copper
brandy bottles (M.O.5); 3 plastic tumblers (M.O.6); a piece of blood
stained cement floor (M.O.7); a piece of cement floor without blood
(M.O.8) under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P4).
7.6. Likewise, from the place where the body was found, he had
seized 2 pieces of cement floor with blood stain (M.O.9) and without
blood stain (M.O.10) under seizure mahazar. The blood stained lungi
(M.O.1) was seized under seizure mahazar (Ex.P6)
7.7. The Investigating Officer at the time of arresting A1 to A3 on
31.05.2017 at 2.10 P.M., had recorded the confession statement of A1, the
admitted portion of which was marked as Ex.P7. Likewise, the admitted
portion of confession statement of A2 was marked as Ex.P8. Based on
these confessions, he had seized a blood stained sandal colour shirt
(M.O.11) and blood stained blue jeans (M.O.12) of A1 and A2
respectively under Ex.P9. The knife used by A1 was already marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
M.O.3 and was seized under seizure mahazar (Ex.P10) and M.O.3 was
seized under Ex.P13.
7.8. P.W.8 – Kannan is the sign language interpreter who had
recorded the confession of A3, whose hearing and speech were impaired.
7.9. The body sent to the hospital for postmortem, was
accompanied by P.W.9 – Gunaseelan, who is the Head Constable and the
special report was marked as Ex.P11.
7.10. P.W.10 is the forensic science expert, who had issued the
viscera report (Ex.P12).
7.11. P.W.11 is also a forensic science expert, who had given the
medical analysis report (Ex.P13) and (Ex.P14) and as per the report,
blood was detected on items 1, 3 and 5 to 14 but not on items 2 and 4.
7.12. P.W.12 is the Doctor, who had recorded Accident Register
(Ex.P15) of A2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
7.13. P.W.13 is the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem and
requisition letters for conducting postmortem were marked as Ex.P16 and
the postmortem certificate as Ex.P17. As per Ex.P17, the following
antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-
“INJURIES:
1. CUT INJURY OVER RIGHT OF THE NECK M-
8X3X1 CMS IN THE MIDDLE ASPECT O/D
CAROTID ARTERY ON THE RIGHT SIDE
SEVERED CUT FRACTURE OF UNDERLYING
CERVICAL VERTEBRA WITH EXTRAVASATION
OF BLOOD, HYOID BONE-INTACT.
2. CUT INJURY OVER RIGHT SIDE TEMPORAL
REGION OF THE SCALP M-3X1X1 CMS
O/D HEAD :- SCALP- CONTUSION OVER THE
OCCIPITAL REGION OF THE SCALP M-3X2X0.5 CMS,
VAULT-INTACT, BRAIN-NORMAL, C/S NORMAL, BASE
OF SKULL- INTACT
O/D THORAX – RIBS - INTACT, HEART - NORMAL IN
SIZE, C/S CHAMBERS – EMPTY, VALVES AND
CORONARIES – NORMAL, LUNGS - NORMAL IN SIZE,
C/S PALE.
O/D ABDOMEN :- STOMACH: CONTAINED 300 GMS
OF PARTIALLY DIGESTED FOOD PARTICLES WITH
FRUITY ODOUR, MUCOSA - C/S PALE, LIVER, SPLEEN,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
KIDNEYS - NORMAL IN SIZE, C/S PALE, BLADDER –
EMPTY, PELVIS-INTACT.”
7.14. As per final opinion (Ex.P18), the cause of death of the
deceased was as follows:-
“The deceased would appear to have died of cut injury over
the neck with evidence of consumption of Ethyl Alcohol.”
7.15. P.W.14 is the Head Constable who speaks about the
information received from the Doctor of the Government Hospital where
A2 was admitted as a medico legal case.
7.16. P.W.15 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who states that when he
went to inquire A2 at the hospital, he was informed that A2 had
discharged himself.
7.17. The complaint (Ex.P1) was registered by the Sub Inspector of
Police, Shevapet Police Station as an First Information Report – P.W.16,
in Crime No.194/2017 dated 30.05.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
7.18. The statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate – V, Salem – P.W.17.
The request given in this regard by the Investigating Officer was marked
as Ex.P20, the orders passed therein as Ex.P21 and the recording of the
voluntary confession statements as Ex.P22.
7.19. P.W.18 is the Doctor, who had registered the body at the
mortuary and issued Accident Register (Ex.P23).
7.20. P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer. During the course of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer on registration of the complaint,
had gone to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazars
both at the scene of occurrence and at the place where the body of the
deceased was found, which were marked as Ex.P24 and Ex.P25
respectively. He had then conducted an inquest over the body of the
deceased and submitted the inquest report (Ex.P26). Thereafter, he had
sent the body for postmortem through P.W.9 under Form – 91 (Ex.P27).
The Deputy Superintendent of Police (FP), SDFP Bureau, Salem District,
had visited the occurrence place and recorded the crime scene visiting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
report (Ex.P28). Under Ex.P29 and Ex.P30, he had sent the material
objects seized from both the accused to the Court. The return of the
material objects and the redepositing of the same before the Judicial
Magistrate – III under Form-95 were marked as Exs.P31, P32 and P33.
Through a requisition letter (Ex.P34) of the Judicial Magistrate – III, the
seized articles were sent for medical analysis. The letter issued by the
finger print expert to the Investigating Officer, confirming the matching
of the chance print with the sample prints of A1, was marked as Ex.P35.
Ex.P36 is the report of the Medical Analyst, who confirmed that the
cement floor pieces with and without blood stains were similar to each
other. In the report of the Forensic Department (Ex.P37), some of the
material objects seized from P.W.1 and the accused, as well as the knife,
confirmed the blood therein as 'human'. However, the result of the
grouping test was declared as 'inconclusive'.
8. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, as well
as the material objects produced before the Trial Court, both the first and
second accused were found guilty of the charges and were sentenced to
their respective imprisonments as already mentioned above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
9. The learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the motive
for the occurrence has not been properly established by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that though the F.I.R. was registered on 30.05.2017
at 3.15 P.M., the same was sent to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on
31.05.2017 at 5.30 A.M. only and hence, there is an unexplained delay. It
was also submitted that from the evidences let-in by P.W.1 and P.W.2
with regard to the manner in which A1 and A2 had inflicted the injuries,
there is no corresponding injury as seen from the medical evidence. In
view of all these serious infirmities, they sought for acquittal of both the
accused.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that this is a case which was directly witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
therefore, when the accused had not discredited the statements of these 2
eyewitnesses, all other minor contradictions in the other evidences would
be immaterial. He further submitted that P.W.3 being the wife of the
deceased, had clearly spoken about the motive, touching upon the non-
payment of the loan amount and the enmity between A1 and the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
for the past 6 months, which was also corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.2.
In view of the same, it is incorrect on the part of the learned counsels for
the accused, to claim that the motive was not established in this case.
11. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions
made by the respective counsels and have perused the original records
relating to the case in hand.
12. This is a case where the occurrence was directly witnessed by
P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the nephews of the deceased. According to
their oral testimonies, both of them had purchased liquor bottles on
30.05.2017 and started drinking at about 1.00 P.M., behind Moongappadi
Girls' Higher Secondary School. They further stated that at about 2.00
P.M., all the three accused had come there carrying liquor bottles and
started to drink. At that time, A1 started demanding the loan amount of
Rs.15,000/- from the deceased, which resulted in a wordy quarrel with
exchange of bad words. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that A1 had
first attacked the deceased with a machete on the right side of his neck
and A2 attacked with a knife on the backside of the head. They also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
speak about the injury caused on the right thumb of A2, while A1
attacked the deceased. After the attack, the deceased started running by
covering his wound on the neck with his hand and thereafter, fell down
under a peepal tree near Kaliamman temple and this fact was also
cogently spoken to by both P.W.1 and P.W.2. The fact that P.W.1 had
called P.W.4 and informed him about the incident was also narrated by
them. When they found the deceased to have died, both P.W.1 and P.W.2
together had gone to the Police Station and the statement of P.W.1 was
reduced to writing by P.W.2 in the complaint (Ex.P1) and given to the
Police. This fact also stands corroborated in their statements.
13. Thus, the presence of both P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of
occurrence and their witnesses to the attack caused by A1 and A2 has
been cogently narrated by them, which according to us, are convincing
and inspires confidence in their testimonies. When the fact of the
presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and their witness to the occurrence has been
established through their oral testimonies, the defence has failed to
elucidate any contra statements from them to disprove or discredit their
version, so as to reject their testimonies. Thus, we are of the affirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
view that the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the eyewitnesses
inspires confidence and is impeachable, insofar as it relates to the overt
acts attributed to both the accused. We find no reason to disbelieve their
testimonies.
14. The learned counsels for the appellants attempted to discredit
the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by stating that there are no
corresponding injuries on the body of the deceased as per their evidences.
15. From the evidence of P.W.13 – Postmortem Doctor read with
postmortem report (Ex.P17), it could be seen that 2 cut injuries, one over
the right side of neck measuring 8x3x1 cms and a cut fracture of
underlying cervical vertebra was found on the body of the deceased.
Another cut injury over right side temporal region of the scalp measuring
3x1x1 cms, was also spoken by him. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their oral
testimonies speak about the cut injuries inflicted by A1 on the right side
of the neck and by A2 on the backside of the head of the deceased. These
injuries, in our view, corresponds to the overt acts attributed by P.W.1 and
P.W.2 on the manner in which A1 and A2 had inflicted the injuries. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
view of the same, we are unable to accept the ground raised by the
learned counsels for the appellants in this regard.
16. The learned counsels for the appellants further submitted that
there was an unexplained delay in transmitting the F.I.R. to the Judicial
Magistrate's Court.
17. A perusal of the F.I.R. (Ex.P19) evidences that P.W.1's
complaint was registered on 30.05.2017 at 3.15 P.M. after the incident
had occurred at 2.00 P.M. on the same day. The F.I.R. seems to have been
received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 5.30 A.M. of 31.05.2017.
P.W.16 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered the F.I.R.
(Ex.P19). As per his statement, the F.I.R. was registered at 3.15 P.M. and
that at about 4.00 P.M., the Investigating Officer had come to the Police,
to whom he had handed over the F.I.R. Thereafter, he had sent the
express F.I.R. to the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial
Magistrate appears to have received the same on the early hours of the
next day at 5.30 A.M. itself. Most of the delay in between, are during the
night hours. The manner in which the crime was reported before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
Police immediately and the express F.I.R. also is claimed to have been
dispatched in the evening after 4.00 P.M., appears to be a reasonable
explanation and the delay in between, cannot be said as an inordinate
delay. Even otherwise, there are 2 eyewitnesses to the incident, whose
evidences stand unimpeachable. Even if there is a delay in sending the
F.I.R. to the learned Judicial Magistrate, it may not be of much
significance when the incident itself stands established.
18. In the case of 'Bhajan Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana'
reported in '(2011) 7 SCC 421', the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that
not every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily
lead to the inference that the F.I.R. has not been lodged at the time stated
or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation is not fair and
forthright and that every such delay is not fatal unless prejudice to the
accused is shown.
19. Thus, the ground of delay raised by the learned counsels for the
appellants does not deserve consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
20. It is also the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the motive to the incident has not been fully established by
the prosecution.
21. It is the case of the prosecution that a wordy quarrel took place
between A1 and the deceased when A1 had demanded return of
Rs.15,000/- from the deceased. P.W.1, as well as P.W.2 affirms about this
fact in their oral testimonies. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased and
according to her, when both the family of the deceased and A1 were in a
cordial relationship, A1 had lent Rs.15,000/- to the deceased. She further
states that when the deceased did not return the money, there arose
enmity between both the families and they were not in talking terms for
the past 6 months. The defence could not elucidate any contra statements
touching upon the relationships between the families of A1 and the
deceased or discredit the statements of P.W.3, as well as that of P.W.1 and
P.W.2. In the absence of any contrary statements made with regard to the
non-payment of the loan amount of Rs.15,000/- by the deceased to A1, as
well as the estranged relationship between both the families, the only
conclusion this Court is arrived at from the oral testimonies of these 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
witnesses, that the incident did occur owing to the previous enmity
between A1 and the deceased, owing to which, a quarrel arose in the
scene of occurrence. It is also the case of the prosecution that, as seen
from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, after the wordy quarrel, A1 had
asked to finish off the deceased and accordingly, A2 had also inflicted the
knife injuries on him. Even in the complaint (Ex.P1) given by P.W.1, he
has spoken about the wordy quarrel between A1 and the deceased.
Though, motive may not be a vital aspect to disprove the case of the
prosecution when there are 2 eyewitnesses to the incident and whose
testimonies are unimpeachable, the prosecution has established and
attributed the aspect of motive also on the accused for the incident. In
view of the same, this ground raised by the learned counsels for the
appellants also does not deserve consideration and the Trial Court had
rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
22. The Trial Court had convicted both the accused for the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. From the evidences of P.W.1
and P.W.2, it is seen that when both the accused came to the scene of
occurrence for consuming liquor, A1 had abused the deceased with dirty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
words while demanding return of his money. Likewise, after inflicting
the knife injuries on the deceased, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 had attempted
to reach out to the deceased, both A1 and A2 had threatened them with
their knives, stating that they would kill them also, if they make any
noise.
23. As already stated, the oral testimonies of both P.W.1 and P.W.2
inspires confidence. Thus, when the eyewitnesses have clearly narrated
the incident and spoken about the dirty words used by A1, the conviction
against him for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, stands
substantiated. Likewise, since both A1 and A2 had caused death threat to
P.W.1 and P.W.2, it can be said that the prosecution has established the
offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC also against both these accused.
Hence, the findings of the Trial Court with regard to the guilt of the
accused for these two offences, does not require interference.
24. In the result, we do not find any merits in the grounds raised by
both the learned counsels for the appellants and hence, both the Criminal
Appeals stand dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
[M.S.R.,J.] [S.M.,J.]
02.08.2024
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem.
2.The Inspector of Police,
R7, K.K.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai – 600 078.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
common judgment
made in Crl.A.Nos.383 & 892 of 2019
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
