← Library
Madras High CourtCRL A/54/2016allowed

M.Manimaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2016-08-31Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan,Honourable Mr Justice S. Nagamuthu14 pages

BAIL SLIP Crl.A.No.54 of 2016 M.Manimaran, S/o.Munusamy, Appellant/Accused No.2, be and hereby directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated 24.02.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.586 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.54 of 2016 on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.92 of 2016 Bail Petition filed by Bala @ Bala Mahendhiran, S/o.Nagalingam, Petitioner No.1/A14 stands dismissed as per order dated 01.03.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1405 & 1406 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.92 of 2016.

Anbu, Son of Sittrampakkam @ Krishnan, Baskar, Son of Murugesan, Bala Shankar Son of Nagalingam, Thirunavukkarasu, Son of Kanniappan, Saravanan, Son of Kollapuri, Vengu @ Vengatesan, Son of Mani @ Veedukolluthy Mani, Prem @ Prem Kumar, Son of Palayam, Vimal @ Vimal, S/o. Somasundaram, Anbarasu, S/o.Murugesan, Kumar @ Kutla Kumar, S/o. Ezhumalai, Arivazhagan @ Arivu, S/o.Saravanan, Dilli S/o.Rathinam and Munusamy Son of Krishnan - Appellants 2 to 14/A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26 and A27 respectively be and hereby directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court, dated 01.03.2016 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1405 & 1406 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.92 of 2016, on the file of this Court.

Crl.A.No.97 of 2016

1. Jeeva @ Jeevarathinam (A1)

2. Uruthiran @ Urithira Kumar (A3)

3. Settu @ Illango (A9)

4. Nagaraj (A10)

5. Kali @ Kalidoss (A11)

6. Prakash (A12) The above said Appellants 1, 2 6 to 9/A1, A3, A9 to A12 be and hereby directed to be released on bail as per order, dated 01.03.2016 made in W.M.P.Nos.1431 & 1432 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.97 of 2016, on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.98 of 2016 1.Anbazhagan @ Anbu/A4 2.Velayudham/A5 That the above said Appellants 1 & 2/Accused 4 & 5 were be and hereby are directed to be released on bail as per

order of this Court dated 01.03.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1437 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.98 of 2016, on the file of this Court. Crl.A.No.139 of 2016 Nagaraj @ Sappai Nagaraj, Appellant/Accused 28 be and hereby is directed to be released on bail as per Order of this Court dated 01.04.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1938 & 1939 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.139 of 2016 on the file of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 24.08.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 31.08.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal Nos.54, 92, 97, 98 and 139 of 2016 M.Manimaran (A2) ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.54/16

1. Bala @ Balamahendhiran (A14)

2. Anbu (A15)

3. Baskar (A16)

4. Bala Shankar (A17)

5. Thirunavukarasu (A18)

6. Saravanan (A19)

7. Vengu @ Vengatesan (A20)

8. Prem @ Premkumar (A21)

9. Vimal @ Vimal Raj (A22)

10. Anbarasu (A23)

11. Kumar @ Kutta Kumar (A24)

12. Arivazhagan @ Arivu (A25)

13. Dilli (A26)

14. Munusamy (A27) ... Appellants in Crl.A.No.92/16

1. Jeeva @ Jeevarathinam (A1)

2. Uruthiran @ Urithira Kumar (A3)

3. Raj @ Auto Raj (A6)

4. Iyyaapan @ Balraj (A7)

5. Rajini @ Parthiban (A8)

6. Settu @ Illango (A9)

7. Nagaraj (A10)

8. Kali @ Kalidoss (A11)

9. Prakash (A12) ... Appellants in Crl.A.No.97/16

1. Anbazhagan @ Anbu (A4)

2. Velayudham (A5) ... Appellants in Crl.A.No.98/16 Nagaraj @ Sappai Nagaraj(A28) ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.139/16 - Vs - The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, B-4 Police Station, Sevvapet, Thiruvallur.

(Crime No.47 of 2003) ... Respondent in all the cases Prayer in all the appeals:- Appeals filed under Section 374

(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.140 of 2007 dated 21.12.2015.

For Appellant in Crl.A.

: Mr.V.Prakash No.54 of 2016 SC for Mr.K.Sudalaikannu For Appellants in Crl.A.: Mr.V.Gopinath No.92 of 2016 SC for Mr.M.R.Senthil Kumar For Appellants in Crl.A.: Mr.N.Panchaksharamoorthy No.97 of 2016 For Appellants in Crl.A.: Mr.T.Muniratnam Naidu No.98 of 2016 For Appellant in Crl.A.

: Mr.C.S.S.Pillai No.139 of 2016 for Mr.V.Devendhiran For Respondent : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran in all the appeals Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 12 and 14 to 28 in S.C.No.140 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. The trial Court framed as many as 10 charges against the accused as detailed below:

Serial Number of charge Charge(s) framed against Charge(s) framed under Section A1 to A28 148 of IPC A1 to A28 120(B) of IPC A6 to A28 449 of IPC A1 to A5 449 r/w 149 of IPC A6 to A28 341 of IPC A1 to A5 341 r/w 149 of IPC A6 to A28 302 of I.P.C.

A1 to A5 302 I.P.C. r/w 149 of IPC A6 to A28 506(ii) of IPC A1 to A5 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC The accused No.13 Mr.Kannan @ Thiruttu Kannan died during the pendency of the trial and thus the charges framed against him stood abated. By judgment dated 21.12.2015, the trial Court convicted these appellants for various charges and accordingly sentenced them as detailed below:

Rank of the Accused Penal provision(s) under which convicted Sentence A1 to A5 148 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

120(B) of IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

449 r/w 149 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

341 r/w 149 of IPC Simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

Rank of the Accused Penal provision(s) under which convicted Sentence 302 r/w 149 of IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

A6 to A12 & A14 to A28 148 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

120(B) of IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

449 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

341 of IPC Simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

302 of IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

506(ii) of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. All these accused belong to Tiruvur village in Tiruvallur district. They belong to Scheduled Caste. There was a long standing enmity in the village between the people

belonging to the Scheduled Caste and the non-Scheduled Caste people who all belonged to a regional political party known as Pattali Makkal Katchi.

2.2. On 01.02.2003, in the morning, it was found that some miscreants had put a garland made of chappals around the neck of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar statute at Aranvoyal Junction road. The people belonging to the Scheduled Caste living in that area, on hearing about the above disrespect shown to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, gathered near the statue and staged a road roko and demanded action against the miscreants. There were about 200 men and 100 women in the crowd. At that time, it is alleged, the accused 1 to 3 came in a motorcycle and the accused 4 and 5 came in another motorcycle to the said place. The accused No.8, Mr.Rajini @ Parthiban, accused No.14 Mr.Bala @ Balamahendhiran and accused No.17 Mr.Bala Shankar were also in the crowd. The accused 1 to 5 called these three accused and told them that in Tiruvur village the party flag of Pattali Makkal Katchi was going to be hoisted and they should not allow them to do so. Thus, the accused 1 to 5 instigated the other accused.

2.3. It is alleged that the accused 6 to 28 formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like aruval, patta kathi and wooden logs went towards Tiruvur village. On their way they found one Sukumar of Tiruvur village in his field. The accused 6 to 28 surrounded him and some of them attacked him. He fell down in a pool of blood and died. Then the crowd went further to a distance of about one furlong. P.W.1 Mr.Adhikesavan in his field along with the deceased Mahesh was working. On seeing them, it is alleged that the accused 6 to 28 surrounded them. It is alleged that the accused 6 to 28 attacked the deceased with deadly weapons like aruval, knife and wooden logs. He fell down and died instantaneously. Then, the crowd proceeded further and caused damage to the motor pump set of one Mr.Muthu @ Muthukumar. Then all the accused fled away from the scene of crime. 2.4. In this regard, on the complaint of P.W.1 a case was registered in Crime No.47 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Ex.P36 is the F.I.R.

2.5. P.W.11 took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch and recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and then forwarded the dead body to the Doctor for postmortem. 2.6. P.W.9 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 01.02.2003 at 04.30 p.m. He found the following injuries: "External injuries: (1) cut injury over

Lf FA just below the elbow extending from middle of extensor part at the level of shaft 5x2x2 cm. (2) cut injury over Rt forearm 6 cm below the elbow 4x1x1 cm in size over extensor part. (3) cut injury over Rt wrist

(4) Stab injury over Rt side of the level of angle of Mandible, extending from just in front of Rt ear to middle of body of Mandible 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm (5) Stab injury Rt side middle of neck antero medial compartment about 3x2x2 cms.

Internal Injuries - examination of all internal organs pale c/s normal. Stomach contains about 100 ml of undigested food particles."

Ex.P33 is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P34 is his final opinion. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.

2.7. P.W.11, then arrested some of the accused (narration of the details are omitted as they are not very much necessary for taking a decision in this case). On the disclosure statements made by the accused, from each accused, one weapon was recovered. The investigation was continued by P.W.12. On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against the accused.

2.8. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 60 documents and 28 material objects were marked.

2.9. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the father of the deceased who was supposed to speak about the entire occurrence, has turned hostile and he has not stated anything against the accused. According to him, when he was in his field along with the deceased, a mob of people came and attacked. He has not even stated that any of the accused was present in the mob.

2.10. P.W.2 has stated that when he went to his field, he found a mob of people attacking the deceased with deadly weapons like aruval, patta knife and wooden logs. He has implicated A6 to A16 as members of the said unlawful assembly. He has further stated that A6 attacked the deceased with aruval on the left side of the chest. A8 attacked the deceased with aruval on the neck and A14 also attacked with patta knife. He has not stated anything about the rest of the accused. P.W.3 who was examined as an eyewitness has also

turned hostile and he has not stated anything against the accused. P.W.4 yet another eyewitness has stated about the presence of A6, A8 and A14 in the mob and he has also specifically stated about the overacts of A6, A8 and A14. 2.11. P.W.5 has spoken about the arrest of some of the accused and consequential recoveries of the weapons. P.W.6 has also spoken about the arrest of some of the accused and consequential recoveries of the material objects. P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer, she has also spoken about the recoveries of certain material objects from the accused. She has further stated that in fact, from each one accused one material object was recovered.

2.12. P.W.8 has also spoken about the arrest of other accused and consequential recoveries of material objects. P.W.9 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.10 the constable has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for postmortem. P.Ws.11 and 12 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 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On their side they examined one Mr.Manish Ayush Tiwari as D.W.1. He was the Superintended of Police of Tiruvallur District on 01.02.2003. He has stated that so far as the present case is concerned, since the Inspector of Police, Sevvapet Police Station was on other duty, he directed the Inspector of Police, Periyapalayam Police Station to investigate the matter. He has further stated that he gave such instructions at 08.30 a.m. Ex.D1 is the said report. In fact, according to the defence, the occurrence would not have taken place at 10.15 a.m. as it is alleged by the prosecution.

4. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all these appellants as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with these appeals.

5. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.

6. As we have already pointed out, the people of Tiruvur village were divided on communal lines. There were two factions. The accused belonged to the Scheduled Caste and the prosecution party belonged to non-Scheduled Castes and they belonged to the Pattali Makkal Katchi. The immediate cause is that the statute of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was disrespected by some miscreants by putting a garland made of chappal and quite

naturally the accused party got wild over the same. Thus, the prosecution has established that the accused were all inimical towards the prosecution party.

7. Now turning to the occurrence, the prosecution relies on the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 who were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The occurrence had taken place in a lonely place in the midst of agricultural lands where the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 3 were working. P.W.1 the father of the deceased has stated that a mob of people came and attacked the deceased. He has not implicated any of the accused. It is not as if the accused were not known to him. After all they belong to the same village. Even then, P.W.1 has not stated that any of these accused was present in the crowd and participated in the occurrence. P.W.1 has been treated as hostile. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is not in any manner useful for the prosecution.

8. Similarly, P.W.3 another villager who was examined as an eyewitness has also turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. He has also stated that a mob of people came and attacked the deceased. He knew these accused, but still he has not implicated any of these accused. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 is also of no use for the prosecution in any manner.

9. P.W.2 yet another eyewitness has stated that at the time of occurrence, when he was proceeding to his land, he found P.W.1 and the deceased in their field. At that time, according to him, A6 to A16 came in the mob. A6, A8 and A14 attacked the deceased. P.W.4 yet another villager has stated that he found A6, A8 and A14 coming to the field of P.W.1 and he found these three accused attacking the deceased. Thus, P.Ws.2 and 4 have spoken about the presence and participation of the accused A6, A8 and A14.

10. But the trial Court has convicted all these appellants. In our considered view, since there is no iota of evidence against the accused other than A6, A8 and A14, they are entitled for acquittal.

11. Now turning to the case against A6, A8 and A14, the learned senior counsel would submit that since P.Ws.2 and 4 are partisan and interested, their evidence need to be carefully weighed. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would make reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Masalti Vs. The State of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the event the evidence of the partisan witnesses are doubtful and in the absence any corroboration, their evidences should not form the basis for conviction.

12. It is true that as per the settled law, this Court should be circumspect to carefully analyse the entire evidence of partisan witnesses. Though the prosecution has projected that as many as 28 persons came in the mob, one cannot expect them to notice the presence and participation of all the 28 accused and speak about the overact including the weapons held. A witness may be in a position to notice only the participation only few accused. If the Court is satisfied that the presence and participation of some of the accused are consistently spoken by the witnesses and whose evidences also inspire the confidence of the Court, there can be no difficulty for the Court to act upon the said evidence. In this regard, we may refer to the Masalti's case (cited supra), wherein, in paragraph 15 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"15....Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of people armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected.

Appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is no doubt a difficult task; but criminal courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not...."

13. Applying the above, if we look into the evidence of P.W.2, he has categorically stated about the presence and participation of A6, A8 and A14. P.W.4 has also spoken about

the presence and participation of A6, A8 and A14. From the evidences of these two witnesses, in our considered view, we can safely conclude that these three accused viz., A6, A8 and A14 were in the unlawful assembly and they attacked the deceased, which resulted in his death. In such view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution has proved that A6, A8 and A14 have committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 449 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. So far as other charges are concerned, there is no evidence against them and therefore they are entitled for acquittal.

14. So far as the motive is concerned, it has been clearly established by these witnesses that these accused had grudges against the people belonging to the Pattali Makkal Katchi. Though initially the object of the assembly was not to kill specifically the deceased, the common object of the assembly was to do away with someone who belonged to the Pattali Makkal Katchi. Thus, the common object of the assembly has also been established by the prosecution.

15. Having regard to the circumstances in which the offences were committed, both mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances, we sentence A6, A8 and A14 to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to under rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to under rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 148 I.P.C.

16. In the result, (a) The Criminal Appeal Nos.54, 98 and 139 of 2016 are allowed on the following terms:

(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants / accused M.Manimaran (A2), Anbazhagan @ Anbu (A4), Velayudham (A5) and Nagaraj @ Sappai Nagaraj (A28) respectively by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.140 of 2007 dated 21.12.2015, is set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges. (ii) The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them.

(iii) The bail bond, if any executed by them, shall stand discharged.

(b) The Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2016 is partly allowed on the following terms:

(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants / accused Anbu (A15), Baskar (A16), Bala Shankar (A17), Thirunavukarasu (A18), Saravanan (A19), Vengu @ Vengatesan (A20), Prem @ Premkumar (A21), Vimal @ Vimal Raj (A22), Anbarasu (A23), Kumar @ Kutta Kumar (A24), Arivazhagan (A25), Dilli (A26) and Munusamy (A27) by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.140 of 2007 dated 21.12.2015, is set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them. The bail bond, if any executed, by them, shall stand discharged.

(ii) So far as the appellant / accused Bala @ Balamahendhiran (A14) is concerned, he is convicted under Sections 148, 449 and 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to under rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and to under rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. So far as the other charges are concerned, the conviction and the sentences are aside and he is acquitted from those charges. The above sentence shall run concurrently.

The period of detention already undergone by the accused Bala @ Balamahendhiran (A14) shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The fine amount now imposed shall be adjusted from the fine amount already paid, if any, and the excess, if any, shall be refunded to him. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused Bala @ Balamahendhiran (A14) and commit him to prison so as to undergo the remaining sentence. (c) The Criminal Appeal No.

(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants / accused Jeeva @ Jeevarathinam (A1), Uruthiran @ Urithira Kumar (A3), Iyyaapan @ Balraj (A7), Settu @ Illango (A9), Nagaraj (A10), Kali @ Kalidoss (A11) and Prakash (A12) by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.140 of 2007 dated 21.12.2015, is set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them. The bail bond, if any executed, by them, shall stand discharged.

(ii) So far as the appellants / accused Raj @ Auto Raj (A6) and Rajini @ Parthiban (A8) are concerned, they are convicted under Sections 148, 449 and 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and to under rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. So far as the other charges are concerned, the conviction and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted from those charges. The above sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the accused Raj @ Auto Raj (A6) and Rajini @ Parthiban (A8) shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.

P.C. The fine amount now imposed shall be adjusted from the fine amount already paid, if any, and the excess, if any, shall be refunded to them. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused Raj @ Auto Raj (A6) and Rajini @ Parthiban (A8) and commit them to prison so as to undergo the remaining sentence.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kk To

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.

2. Do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur.

3. The Inspector of Police, B-4 Police Station, Sevvapet, Thiruvallur.

4. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

5. The Collector, Tiruvallur.

6. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 04.

7. The Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur.

8. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

+1cc to Mr.K.Sudalaikannu, Advocate, S.R.No.49984 +5cc's to Mr.M.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.49562 +1cc to Mr.T.Muniratnam Naidu, Advocate, S.R.No.50099 +1cc to Mr.V.Devendhiran, Advocate, S.R.No.49416 Crl.A.Nos.54, 92, 97, 98 & 139 of 2016 KS(CO) CA(26/09/2016)