THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 23.02.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.03.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Criminal Appeal No.867 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.14126 of 2016 Arulvel .. Appellant
- Vs -
State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanayakanpalayam Sub-Division, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.57 of 2010) .. Respondent
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.201 of 2011 dated 24.10.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Elangovan for Mr.V.Balasubramani For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor Amicus Curiae : Mr.A.Raghunathan, Senior Advocate Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Advocate Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.)
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.201 of 2011 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 24.10.2016, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to undergo rigourous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
2.1. The accused in this case was running a shop in Tirupur. The deceased was his wife. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.1 was residing at Sowdambiga Nagar in Samichettipalayam, Coimbatore District. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was celebrated in the year 2009. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased were residing at Tirupur for sometime. Since the shop run by the accused met with a fire accident, having sustained huge loss, the accused returned to his paternal home at Sivasakthi Nagar, Tirumalainaickenpalayam, Jothipuram Post, Coimbatore. Thereafter, he was working in a private company.
2.2. On 05.11.2010, the accused and the deceased had gone to the house of P.W.1 to celebrate Deepavali. In fact, they had come only a day before Deepavali. On that night, the accused and the deceased were sleeping in a room in the house of P.W.1, whereas, P.W.1 and his wife were sleeping in a different room. Around 02.45 a.m. his wife woke him up requesting him to help her to go to the toilet. At that time, they noticed that the outer door of the house was simply closed and not bolted. The motorcycle of the accused was not found at the place where usually it would have been parked. The iron gate in front of the house was also kept open.
2.3. P.W.2 went up to the room where the accused and the deceased were sleeping and knocked at the door. The accused alone opened the door and came out of the room. P.Ws.1 and 2 asked the accused about the deceased. The accused in turn asked as to where the deceased had gone. He pretended as though he was not aware of the fate of the deceased. Then, all of them went in search of the deceased. The nephew of P.W.1 also searched for the deceased. But the deceased was not found anywhere. At last, when they opened the lid/cover of the water tank behind the house, they found the deceased lying in the tank immersed in water, she was no more. A gold chain (M.O.3) and gold bangle one pair (M.O.1) worn by the deceased were found missing.
2.4. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Thudiyalur police station and made a complaint at 08.30 a.m. on 05.11.2010. On the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.57 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death). P.W.14 the then Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence at 09.30 a.m. prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. He recovered the Hero Honda Passion Plus motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-39-AL-1698, which was parked at a distance of about 40 feet away from the house of P.W.1. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and few more witnesses. Then, he forwarded the F.I.R. to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.10) for conducting inquest.
2.5. P.W.10 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 06.11.2010. It is alleged that during the inquest, he examined many witnesses including the accused. At that time, the accused gave a statement to P.W.10 on his own. In the said statement, he confessed that he killed his wife by strangulating her and by immersing her in water in the water tank. In the said statement, he further stated that after the accused and the deceased had returned from Tirupur, they started residing at Coimbatore and she started attending tailoring school in Coimbatore. The accused has further stated that he used to take her every day in his motorcycle and drop her at Thudiyalur, from where, she would go to Saibaba Colony at Coimbatore by bus. According to the confession, 15 days before the occurrence, after he dropped her at Thudiyalur bus stand, he found the deceased travelling in a motorcycle along with a third person. After she returned home, he questioned as to who was that man with whom she went in the motorcycle. The deceased told that she went with one Shankar and he was working in the same company where she was undergoing training. Again on a Saturday, the deceased wanted to go for training class. Out of suspicion, when the accused went to the training institute, he found that it was a holiday for the institute. In the evening, when she returned home, the accused did not enquire about the same. After quite sometime, the deceased was not cooperating with the accused to have sexual intercourse. In the said statement, the accused had further stated that on 04.11.2010, he came to the house of P.W.1 along with the deceased. During the night intervening 04.11.2010 and 05.11.2010, they were watching T.V. Programme. Thereafter, they started sleeping in a separate room.
According to the confession, at that time, the accused invited her to have sexual intercourse. But she initially declined. After long persuasion, she agreed for sexual intercourse and thus they had sexual intercourse. Thereafter, both of them went together to the bathroom. Near the bathroom the accused asked her as to where she had gone on that Saturday by pretending that she was going to the training institute. But the deceased reiterated that she went only to the training institute. She has further stated that the watchman who told the accused on that day it was a holiday was not aware of the working of the institute. According to the confession, he took the deceased to the bathroom and made her to sit on the parapet wall of the water tank, which was of 4 feet height. The accused pretended that he was very affectionate towards the deceased. He spoke to her nicely and kissed her also. At an opportune movement, suddenly he strangulated the neck of the deceased and pushed her into the water. The deceased died at once. When the accused strangulated her, the deceased caught hold of the gold chain worn by the accused around his neck and it had gave way and she fell down. Then, he closed the water tank with the lid / cover. He has further stated that during night hours, the deceased used to remove the jewels including the anklets as it would be a disturbance during sexual intercourse. On the day of occurrence also the deceased had removed and kept the jewels below the pillow. The accused removed them and concealed the same in a different portion of the house. He has further confessed that thereafter around 02.30 a.m., when P.W.2 came knocking at the door enquiring about the deceased. He has concluded his statement by saying that since the deceased was not cooperating with him to have sexual intercourse and since he had suspicion that she was having illicit relationship with someone, he killed her.
2.6. P.W.10 the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted his report to P.W.14. Based on the same, he altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. On the same day, at 08.30 p.m., he arrested the accused. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden M.Os.1 to 3. In pursuance of the same, he produced the jewels from the place where he had concealed inside the house of P.W.1. Then, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand. The investigation was thereafter taken over by his successor P.W.15. P.W.15 on completing the investigation, laid chargesheet against the accused.
2.7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 19 documents and 4 material objects were marked.
2.8. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the father and P.W.2 the mother of the deceased have spoken about the marriage and the arrival of the accused and the deceased together on 04.11.2010 for celebrating deepavali and that they stayed together in the house in a separate room. At around 02.30 a.m. when P.W.2 knocked at the door of the room where the accused and the deceased were staying, the accused opened the door and the deceased was not seen. Thereafter, the deceased was found immersed in the water tank.
2.9. P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased. She has stated about the marriage between the accused and the deceased. She has further stated that the deceased once told her that the accused was harassing her out of suspicion over her fidelity. P.W.4 is a nephew of P.W.1. He has stated that he accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2 in search of the deceased and finally they found the dead body of the deceased in the water tank. P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 are neighbours of P.W.1 and they have stated that they came to know about the occurrence later.
2.10. P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared at the place of occurrence.
P.W.9 has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.10 has spoken about the enquiry made by him and the statement made by the accused during inquest which amounts to confession. P.W.11 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared at the place of occurrence.
2.11. P.W.12 Dr.Jeyasingh has stated that on the request made by P.W.10 he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 06.11.2010 at 04.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:
“Injuries: Abrasion 3x2 cm noted over front of left knee. 2X1 cm noted over from of right knee, 6x2 cm noted over lateral aspect of right elbow, 1x0.5 cm noted over back of right elbow and 1x0.5 cm noted over back of left elbow. Scratch abrasion 0.5x0.25 cm noted over middle of front of neck at the level of mid line. Scratch abrasion 0.5x0.25 cm noted over right side neck. 1 cm right to mid line, 6 cm above to inner aspect of right clavicle. Scratch abrasion 0.5x0.25 cm noted over right side neck 2cm left to mid line. Scratch abrasion 2x0.25 cm noted over front of left side lower neck 2 cm left to midline. Contusion 3x2 cm noted over back of inner aspect of left elbow, 3x2 cm noted over outer aspect of left elbow and 4x3x0.5 cm noted over lateral aspect of left mid thigh.
On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: sub sca.. contusion 6x4 cm noted over mid posterior parietal region. On dissection of neck: A transverse contusion 3x2 cm noted over posterior aspect of deep planes of right side neck muscle at the level of interior bonder of thyroid cartilage and 4x2x1 cm in depth noted on back of neck muscles in its middle hyoid bone, thyroid and cricoid cartilage found intact. Epiglottis and larynxial mucosa found edematous.
Other findings: Pleural and peritoneal cavities empty. Larynx and Trachea cut section shows frothy secretion. Lungs: Both lungs found voluminous. Ribs marks noted over anterior surface of both lungs. Section shows blood stained frothy secretion. Heart – All chambers contain few cc of fluid blood. Both coronaries ostium found intact. Stomach contains about 100 grams of partially digested food particles mixed with watery fluid, no specific smell, mucosa congested. Small intestine contains about 20 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa congested. Liver, brain, spleen and kidneys: cut section congested. Urinary bladder empty. Uterus – normal in size, cut section empty. Viscera Preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Sternum preserved and sent for diatoms test.”
Ex.P10 is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P12 is the diatom test report and Ex.P.13 is his final opinion regarding the the cause of death. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation and drowning.
2.12. P.W.13 a police constable has stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the doctor for postmortem. P.Ws.14 and 15 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.
3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However he did not choose to examine anyone nor mark any documents. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above the trial Court convicted him as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and that is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.
5. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no controversy over the fact that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was celebrated in the year 2009 and this occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 04.11.2010 and 05.11.2010. On 04.11.2010 the accused and the deceased were watching T.V. Programme at the house of P.W.1. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased went into a separate room for sleeping. Thus, the deceased was lastly seen alive by P.Ws.1 and 2 around 10.30 p.m. on 04.11.2010.
6. Around 02.30 a.m. on 05.11.2010, when P.W.2 knocked at the door of the room where the accused and the deceased were sleeping, the accused alone came out by opening the room. The deceased was not seen. The dead body of the deceased was thereafter found in the water tank immersed in the water. P.W.12 Dr.Jeyasingh who conducted autopsy has opined that the death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation as well as due to drowning. Thus, it was a homicide. The prosecution has thus established beyond any doubt that the death of the deceased, which was a homicide, had occurred sometime between 10.30 p.m. on 04.11.2010 and 02.30 a.m. on 05.11.2010.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that it was this accused who strangulated the deceased, pushed her into the water in the water tank and killed her. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution mainly relies on the statement allegedly made by the accused to P.W.10 the Revenue Divisional Officer during inquest under Section 176 Cr.P.C. Of course, in the said statement, the accused has confessed to his guilt.
8. But the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the said statement of the accused made to P.W.10 is not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel would place reliance on an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunasekaran Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, Perambalur District in Crl.A.No.930 of 2007 dated 02.12.2016. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1992 SC 1944, has held in paragraphs 42 to 44 as follows:
“42. In Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1992 SC 1944 = 1992 Crl.LJ 3592] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the contents of the inquest report cannot be treated as evidence, it can be looked into to test the veracity of the witnesses.
43. Statement given to R.D.O. can be used by the defence to contradict the witness because it is also a previous statement. The Court cannot mark a police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. equally, the Court cannot mark a statement given to the R.D.O.
Under certain circumstances, they can be marked as defence exhibit.
44. The danger of marking, admitting statement given to a R.D.O. in evidence is that the mind of the Court will be prejudiced. And a statement not given before the Court being introduced in the evidence. A statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not marked. Likewise, a statement given to R.D.O. also should not be marked.”
9. A reading of the above judgment of the learned Single Judge would indicate that the learned Judge is of the view that any statement, whether made by an accused or a witness to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, during enquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. is not admissible in evidence and therefore the same should not be admitted in evidence.
10. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the statement of the accused in the instant case to P.W.10 is admissible in evidence, upon which strong reliance could be made. He has further submitted that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the above case, that as a statement given to the police during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not marked, a statement made to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer should also not to be marked is not the correct proposition of law.
11. The learned defence counsel would further submit that assuming that the said statement is admissible, the said statement cannot be believed as the accused would not have made such a confession voluntarily. This is also refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In our considered view, the admissibility of the statement of the accused to P.W.10 needs to be resolved first.
12. The learned Single Judge, as we have already pointed out, made reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh's case (cited supra). But a close reading of the said judgment would go to show that in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not at all held that a statement made by a witness to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer during enquiry is not admissible in evidence. By way of passing remarks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation:
“No doubt, the contents of the inquest report cannot be treated as evidence but they can be looked into to test the veracity of D.W. 2.”
This observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the admissibility of a statement made by a witness or the accused to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Magistrate during inquest.
13. The learned single Judge has equated the statement of a witness made during investigation and reduced into writing by a police officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to a statement made by a witness to the Executive Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer. With respect, we should state that the said equation made by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. The statement made by a witness during investigation to the Investigating Officer falling under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be used for any purpose except for the purposes mentioned in Section 162 Cr.P.C. itself. But a statement made to the Revenue Divisional Officer would not fall within the sweep of Section 161 Cr.P.C. because the Revenue Divisional Officer / Executive Magistrate is not a police officer. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 176 Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate holding an enquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any manner prescribed in the Code according to the circumstances of the case. The Executive Magistrate is, thus, competent to administer oath to the witnesses and record their statements, if he chooses to do so. The evidence of a witness so recorded by the Executive Magistrate under Section 176 Cr.P.C., at no stretch of imagination, shall fall within the ambit of Section 162 Cr.P.C. and therefore it is undoubtedly admissible in evidence as a former statement.
14. Now turning to the evidentary value of such evidence recorded by the Executive Magistrate, it is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same could be used either to corroborate the evidence of the maker of the said statement as provided under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramprasad Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1999 5 SCC 10, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“Section 157 of the Evidence Act permits proof of any former statement made by a witness relating to the same fact before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact but its use is limited to corroboration of the testimony of such witness. Though a police officer is legally competent to investigate, any statement made to him during such investigation cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of a witness because of the clear interdict contained in Section 162 of the Code. But a statement made to a magistrate is not affected by the prohibition contained
in the said Section. A magistrate can record the statement of a person as provided in Section 164 of the Code and such statement would either be elevated to the status of Section 32 if the maker of the statement subsequently dies or it would remain within the realm of what it was originally. A statement recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 becomes usable to corroborate the witness as provided in Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided in Section 155 thereof.” (Emphasis added)
15. In view of the above law settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gunasekaran (cited supra) is per incuriam as it is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the same needs to be overruled. Accordingly and with regret, we overrule paragraphs 43 and 44 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gunasekaran (cited supra).
16. In the instant case, at the time when the statement (evidence) was made by the accused to the Revenue Divisional Officer / Executive Magistrate, he was not an accused and neither P.W.10 has been empowered to record a confession as provided under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sivakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Appeal (Crl.) No.242 of 2005 dated 08.12.2005 has held that “With a view to exclude the admissibility of the confession made before a person, he must be a police officer.”
Therefore, the statement made by the accused to P.W.10, in the instant case, is undoubtedly an extra judicial confession, which is admissible in evidence as neither the bar contained in Section 162 Cr.P.C. nor the one contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act is applicable to the statement of P.W.10.
17. Having come to the said conclusion, we have to now examine as to what is the evidentary value that could be attached to the said confession made by the accused to P.W.10. In Mujeeb and another Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2000 SC 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Extra-judicial confession may or may not be a weak evidence. Each case is required to be examined on its own fact.” In State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180, in paragraph 19 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.”
18. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our considered view, if the said extra judicial confession inspires the fullest confidence of this Court, there may not be any difficulty for this Court to act upon the same and convict the accused. But, in this case, we find it difficult to place complete reliance on the said statement made by the accused for more than one reason. It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused and the deceased had decided to sleep together in a separate room in the house of P.W.1. Till 10.30 p.m. they were watching T.V. programme and then only they went to sleep. At 02.30 a.m. when P.W.2 knocked at the door of the room, the accused alone came and the deceased was not seen. At that time, when P.W.2 asked the accused about the deceased, the accused with anxiety, immediately asked in turn about the deceased. He joined P.Ws.1 and 2 in search of the deceased. This conduct of the accused, in our considered view is inconsistent with the alleged guilt of the accused. In fact, it is consistent with the innocence pleaded by him.
19. The motorcycle of the accused was not at the place where it was parked. It was lying at a distance of about 40 feet away from the house. There is no evidence as to who removed the same and abandoned it at a distance. The possibility of the deceased having come out of the room, after the accused had slept, to meet her paramour and her death at the hands of either her paramour or somebody else is also equally possible. These circumstances would naturally create further doubts in the extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused to P.W.10. As we have already referred to, if the extra judicial confession is shrouded with any doubt, as a rule of prudence, the Court should look for corroboration on material particulars from independent sources. In the instant case, absolutely there is no other evidence from independent sources to corroborate the extra judicial confession in material particulars. Therefore, in our considered view, it is not safe to rely on the extra judicial confession, which is a doubtful document.
20. In the confession, the accused had stated that when he wanted her to consent for sexual intercourse, she initially declined, then she consented and they had sexual intercourse. They then went together to the bathroom. Thereafter, there would have been no reason for the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Going by the natural human conduct as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, we are able to presume that the occurrence would not have happened in the manner as it is projected through the alleged extra judicial confession. This also creates doubt about the said extra judicial confession.
21. So far as the recovery to the jewels are concerned, they were very much inside the house and it is the case of the prosecution itself that the deceased used to remove and keep the jewels during night hours.
22. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore he is entitled for acquittal.
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.201 of 2011 dated 24.10.2016 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted; the fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him; since the appellant is in jail, he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No kk
(S.N.J.) (A.S.M.J.) 20.03.2017
To
1. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanayakanpalayam Sub-Division, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
& ANITA SUMANTH,J.
kk
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT
in Crl.A.No.867 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.14126 of 2016
RESERVED ON : 23.02.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in