Bright v. The Inspector Of Police,

BAIL SLIP The Appellants/Accused 2 and 3 are directed to be released on Bail as per order in Crl MP(MD)No.5382 of 2017 in Crl A(MD) No.198/2017 dated 23/10/2017 on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 20.03.2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.A.(MD)No.198 of 2017 1.Bright 2.Prince 3.Baskar ... Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3 Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhy Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

Crime No.366 of 2009 ... Respondent /Complainant PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, dated 26.04.2017 and set aside the conviction and sentence.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Ashok for first appellant Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran for Mr.A.Balaji for appellants 2 & 3 For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Additional Public Prosecutor

*****

JUDGMENT

B.PUGALENDHI, J., This appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.1 of 2011 dated 26.04.2017, wherein the appellants herein and another accused were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b) and 302 IPC and the learned trial Judge, though acquitted the fourth accused, has convicted accused 1 to 3 / appellants herein as follows:

Accused Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 120(b) IPC To undergo imprisonment for life, each.

Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, each.

A1 to A3 Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, each.

The above sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The background facts, as projected by the prosecution, in a nutshell, are as follows:

2.1. On 17.10.2009, around 09.00 pm, the deceased Raja Jebasekhar and his brother [PW1] accompanied one Sreekumar [PW2], who is their brother-in-law, to board a bus at Vellamadam Bus Stop. Despite waiting for quite some time, no bus had come and therefore, PWs 1 & 2 went to the nearby place to find an Auto. At that time, the deceased raised a sound that he is being killed. Hearing the noise, PWs 1 & 2 returned and witnessed the accused persons, armed with knives, attacking the deceased indiscriminately. Even before they could come to his rescue, the accused fled away in a motorcycle by saying that he was murdered for having stood as a witness in Ahimas murder case, as against them.

302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life, each.

2.2. PW1 went to Aralvaimozhy Police Station and lodged the complaint [Ex.P1] before the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW19], who, in turn, registered the case at about 10.00 pm as against the first accused and two others, aged about 30 and 35 years, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The printed First Information Report [Ex.P20] was handed over to the Head Constable [PW15] at about 10.30 pm and the same reached the concerned Judicial Magistrate on 18.10.2009 at 02.00 am.

2.3. After registering the First Information Report, the Inspector of Police [PW21] took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence around 11.00 pm, prepared the Observation Mahazer [Ex.P24] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P25], showing the place of occurrence, in the presence of witnesses PWs 4 & 5. PW21 also collected the soil with and without blood stains under MOs 8 &

9, respectively, from the place of occurrence under Mahazer Ex.P26, in the presence of the said witnesses.

2.4. PW21 sent the body of the deceased to the Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, through one Anbaiyan / Head Constable [PW17] and conducted the inquest at the Hospital on 18.10.2009 from 07.00 am to 09.30 am, in the presence of Panchayathars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P27. He also made a request for conducting postmortem under Ex.P14 and the Doctor [PW16] conducted Autopsy on the body of the deceased on 18.10.2009 at about 01.00 pm.

2.5. The Doctor [PW16] has noted as many as 12 injuries on the body of the deceased, of which, injury nos.1 to 4, 7, 9 & 10 are cut injuries; injury nos.5, 6 & 8 are stab injuries; and injury nos.11 & 12 are abrasions. The Doctor has also noted the presence of 200 gms of partly digested cooked food particles with pungent odour in the Stomach of the deceased and gave his opinion under Ex.P17 that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage, 6 to 24 hours prior to Autopsy, due to multiple stab and cut injuries. The internal organs of the deceased have also been sent for Visceral examination and the Viscera report is marked as Ex.P16, that no poisonous substance was detected.

2.6. In the meantime, the appellants along with another accused, namely, Subi, surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Satankulam, on 20.10.2009 and PW21, on receipt of the intimation, filed an application for police custody on 22.10.2009 and police custody was given on 26.10.2009. During police custody, the accused gave separate confession statements and pursuant to the disclosure statement of the first accused, the knife [MO1] and motorcycle [MO4] were recovered under Ex.P29 & Ex.P30, in the presence of PW6. Similarly, MOs 2 & 3 [knives] were recovered based on the disclosure statements given by the accused 2 & 3. Thereafter, PW21 sent the alteration report under Ex.P35 and has also made a request to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis of the articles under MOs. 1 to 3 & 5 to 9.

The Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory [PW20], on examination of these material objects, found the presence of Human Blood and on further analysis, it was found that in all the material objects 'O' group human blood was found. The serological report is marked as Ex.P23. After completing the investigation, PW21 filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandy in P.R.C.No.9 of 2010 and on committal to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed as against the appellants herein and another accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b) & 302 IPC.

2.7. In support of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined, 35 documents and 7 material objects were marked. Out of these 21 witnesses, PWs 1, 4 to 7 & 9 have turned hostile. 2.8. The available evidence from the prosecution witnesses

are as follows:

a) PW1 is the brother of the deceased and also the informant in this case. He is the author of the complaint [Ex.P1], but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile.

b) PW2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has stated that all the three went to the place of occurrence to board a bus and since there was a delay in getting the bus, he went with PW1 in search of an Auto, but did not get one and while returning to the place where the deceased was waiting, he saw the attack. He has referred to the presence of the first accused in the place of occurrence and said that two others were wearing towel on their head. He has further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by other people, who has also referred the accused are residents of Sahai Nagar and according to him, his brother-in-law's house is in Sahai Nagar and he saw the accused previously at Sahai Nagar.

c) PW3 is a labourer, working in a brick-kiln and used to purchase liquor from a liquor shop nearby to the place of occurrence. He has stated that he knows the deceased and the accused. On 17.10.2009, he along with his friends went to the wineshop in a bicycle and at that time, they witnessed the occurrence. PW3 has identified all the accused and according to him, accused 1 & 3 were wearing a towel on their head. He also stated that the accused, while committing the offence, said that this will be the fate for standing as a witness in Alimas murder case. He identified the motorcycle used by the accused, which was marked as MO4 and the knives [MOs 1 to 3].

d) PWs 4 to 7, who are the Mahazer witnesses, turned hostile. e) PW8, who is the brother of Ahimas, has stated that his brother was murdered on 14.12.2000 and in that case, the first appellant herein [A1] is one of the accused. PW8 is the complainant in that case and the deceased in this case has supported him. The case was listed for trial and it had not proceeded. He was examined to prove the motive behind the murder.

f) PW9, who was examined to establish the conspiracy, turned hostile.

g) PW10, the father of the deceased, would state that on 17.10.2009, on the eve of Deepavali, they had lunch in their house and in the evening, around 07.30 pm, in order to send off PW2, his sons / PW1 and the deceased accompanied them to the bus stop. PW10 has also identified the Lungi [MO5], Shirt [MO6] and Jatti [MO7] of the deceased, which were recovered from the body of the deceased after the postmortem.

h) PWs 11 & 12 are the shop owners nearby the place of occurrence. They have not witnessed the occurrence, but have stated that an occurrence took place, pursuant to which, all the shops downed their shutters.

i) PW13, a wireman from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has stated about the presence of a lamp-post near the place of occurrence and that there was power supply on the date and time

of the incident.

j) PW14 is the Photographer, who took photograph of the place of occurrence at the request of the investigation officer [PW21]. According to him, he took photographs on 17.10.2009 at 11.00 pm at six different angles and at that time, the dead body was not there in the place of occurrence.

k) PW15 is the Head Constable, who received the printed First Information Report [Ex.P20] and handed over the same to the concerned Magistrate.

l) PW16 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. He found 12 injuries on the body of the deceased and also noted down the presence of 200 gms of partly digested cooked food particles with pungent odour in the Stomach of the deceased. He gave his opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage, 6 to 24 hours prior to Autopsy, due to multiple stab and cut injuries.

m) PW17, Head Constable, was deputed for bundobust of the body of the deceased and for identifying the body of the deceased to the Doctor [PW16], who conducted postmortem. n) PW18, Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandy, states about the receipt of the letter [Ex.P18] from PW21 requesting to forward the material objects for Forensic test and the letter issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy under Ex.P19 to the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirunelveli.

o) PW19 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint [Ex.P1].

p) PW20 is the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirunelveli. He speaks about the receipt of material objects [MOs 1 to 8, except MO4] and the biological as well as serological report, viz., Ex.P21 & Ex.P22, respectively.

q) PW21 is the investigating officer / Inspector of Police who had spoken about the investigation conducted by him as well as the filing of final report.

2.9. In conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge put the incriminating materials to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the appellants denied the same. Upon appreciating the evidence let-in by the prosecution, the trial Court, though acquitted the fourth accused, has found the accused 1 to 3 / appellants herein guilty and convicted them as stated supra. As against the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed. 3.

Heard Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Ashok learned Counsel on record appearing for the first appellant; Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Counsel for Mr.A.Balaji, learned Counsel on record appearing for appellants 2 & 3;

and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

4. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel for the first appellant has raised the following points for consideration:

4.1. The entire prosecution case is based on the complaint [Ex.P1], which was not supported by the complainant [PW1] and that would cut at the root of the prosecution case. 4.2. The occurrence took place at night hours, but the lamppost is not referred to in the sketch [Ex.P25], as such, there is no possibility for the witnesses to have seen the occurrence. 4.3. The father of the deceased [PW10] would state that at about 07.45 pm, he was informed that his son was murdered at the bus stop. While so, the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at 09.00 pm cannot be accepted. The evidence of PW10 is also supported by the evidence of the Photographer [PW14] that he took photograph in the place of occurrence at 11.00 pm and at that time, the dead body was not there.

4.4. PW10 stated in his evidence that the deceased took lunch at 01.00 pm and had some coffee in the evening and went to the bus stop at 07.30 pm. But, the Doctor [PW16], who conducted postmortem, has noted 200 gms of partly digested cooked food particles in the Stomach of the deceased and also mentioned the pungent odour found in the food articles and therefore, the deceased might have consumed liquor and food prior to the occurrence, which was not stated by PW2, as such, the evidence of PW2 that he was in the company of the deceased from the beginning and accompanied him to the bus stop is highly doubtful.

4.5. The presence of PW3 in the place of occurrence cannot be accepted for the reason that his name is not mentioned in the complaint [Ex.P1]. He was examined only on 06.01.2010 and this statement also reached the Court only on 31.01.2010. Moreover, according to PW3, he only stated the names of the accused to PW1. If PW3 was actually present in the place of occurrence and had stated the names of the accused to PW1, then all the names of the accused would appear in the complaint [Ex.P1] and his presence in the place of occurrence would have also been marked. In the absence of such materials in the complaint [Ex.P1], it has to be inferred that PW3 is a cooked up witness, inserted by the prosecution at a later point of time and no reliance can be placed on his evidence.

5. Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Counsel for appellants 2 & 3 adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the first appellant. In addition to the same, he has raised the following points for consideration:

5.1. The names of accused 2 & 3 are not mentioned in the complaint [Ex.P1] and also during the inquest. Admittedly, there is no motive for the accused 2 & 3 as against the deceased. 5.2. In the printed First Information Report [Ex.P20], in serial no.7, the names of the accused has been mentioned as Bright and two others, aged about 30 and 35 years. In the absence of any identification parade, it is not proper to ropein the appellants 2 & 3 in this case and the conviction is bad in law.

5.3. The conviction of appellants 2 & 3 under Section 120(b) IPC is bad in law, when the witness for conspiracy [PW9] turned hostile. Moreover, the fourth accused, namely, Subi, who is also

similarly roped-in, was acquitted by the trial Court on benefit of doubt. The benefit of doubt extended to the fourth accused ought to have been extended to these appellants also.

5.4. In the cross examination, PW2 has stated that he was informed about the occurrence by 2, 3 persons, who have witnessed the occurrence and therefore, he could not have witnessed the occurrence and as such, he cannot be treated as an eye witnesses.

6. Per contra, Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor made his submissions based on the prosecution evidence and would submit that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt against the accused. He further submitted that though PW1 turned hostile, he supported the case of the prosecution by admitting the complaint [Ex.P1] and the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence, during cross examination. PWs 2 & 3 are examined as eye witness and the complaint was lodged immediately after the occurrence and the same has also reached the Court immediately. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, motive aspect has also been established and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the accused does not require any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. From the evidence of PWs 8 & 21, it appears the deceased in this case is a witness in S.C.No.132 of 2003, as against the first accused. Prior to the occurrence, the deceased was assaulted by the accused. The accused, in order to deter the witnesses, have committed the offence and the eye witnesses / PWs 2 & 3 have stated that the accused, by doing the offence, have also proclaimed openly that he was murdered for having stood as a witness against them in S.C.No.132 of 2003.

9. PW1 and the deceased are brothers and PW2 is their brother-in-law. On the eve of Deepavali, all of them met in the deceased's house, celebrated and when they reached the Vellamadam bus stop in order to send off PW2, this occurrence has taken place. In this case, the incident was reported to the police immediately after the occurrence. The complainant, though treated as hostile, admitted his signature and the contents of the complaint. He also referred to the presence of the accused in the place at the time of occurrence. The place of occurrence is not disputed and it is sufficiently established from the available evidence. Even the shopkeepers nearby to the place of occurrence have stated that an occurrence took place near to the office of the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society on that fateful day and that apart, the investigation officer has also collected the bloodstained earth to establish the place of occurrence. Therefore, the place of occurrence (referred to above) is established and the date of occurrence, ie., on the eve of Deepavali, is also not disputed.

10. As we have already discussed, the complaint [Ex.P1] was lodged immediately after the occurrence. PW15 received the printed First Information Report [Ex.P20] at about 10.30 pm and reached the residence of the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi, at about 01.30 am and handed over the same to the Magistrate at about 02.00 am, in the late hours, as such, the First Information Report [Ex.P20] has also reached the Court without any delay. The date, time and place of occurrence has been sufficiently established from the available evidence and the presence of PWs 1 to 3 is also quite natural.

11. From the evidence of PWs 2 & 3, it can be seen that two of the accused were wearing a towel on their head. Accused 2 & 3 are also residents of Sahai Nagar and PW3 knew their names. Though PW2 was not aware of their names, he has seen them in that area several times. PW3 has stated the names of the accused to PW1, but, in Ex.P1, the assailants are mentioned as Bright and two others, aged about 30 & 35 years old. PW2, who has seen them earlier in that area was not aware of their names. PW3 did not accompany PW1 to the police station. There is no material to show that PW1 knew accused 2 & 3. To say that PW1 should have borrowed the knowledge about accused 2 & 3 from PW3 and should have named them in the First Information Report, though he himself did not knew the accused 2 & 3, would be stretching too much.

PW1 would have been in a state of shock after witnessing the ghastly incident. But, during the investigation, the investigation officer collected the details about this accused through PW3. Moreover, the accused 2 & 3 have surrendered before the Court along with the first accused, which is a conduct relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and during the police custody, the weapons MOs 2 & 3 were recovered pursuant to their disclosure statement.

12. PW3, who did not accompany PW1 at the time of lodging the complaint, has stated their name and their role during the investigation and also during the trial, as such, we cannot disbelieve the prosecution evidence in toto to acquit accused 2 & 3. The test identification parade is not necessary when the eye witness knows the accused himself. But, the learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the presence of PW3 in the place of occurrence based on the manner in which the accused 2 & 3 are roped-in.

13. Therefore, we have to consider the evidence of PW3 very carefully. PW3 is examined as eye witness. He is neither a friend nor a relative to PW1. He is from the same area and working in a brick-kiln. He knew both the deceased and the accused. He used to purchase liquor from a liquor shop adjacent to the place of occurrence and on that day also, on the eve of Deepavali, he went to the wineshop to purchase liquor along with his friend and on his way, he has witnessed the occurrence. He is a chance witness. The presence of liquor shop near the place of occurrence is not disputed by the accused, since they made a defence that the deceased consumed liquor from that liquor shop, quarreled with some unknown persons and those persons have committed the offence. While so, the presence

of the liquor shop near the place of occurrence is established and it was also a day of celebration, as it was the eve of Deepavali.

14. The evidence of PW3 is cogent and acceptable. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. As regards the contention of the defence that there is a delay in the examination of PW3 by the police, no question was put to the investigation officer on that aspect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banti @ Guddu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in JT 2003 (8) SC 392 and in Ramanand Yadav v. Babhunath Jha, reported in 2004 MLJ (Crl) 284 SC has categorically held that the defence cannot gain any advantage on the ground of delay in the examination of a witness by the police, unless the investigation officer has been asked about it in the cross examination. In this case, the investigation officer has not been asked anything on this aspect in the cross examination.

15. Similarly in the complaint, we cannot expect the complainant to give the names of the person, who had seen the occurrence, because the attention of the complainant will not be on the onlookers but on the event.

16. PW16, the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, has specifically stated that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage, due to multiple stab and cut injuries. Therefore, it is a clear case of homicide. The accused have surrendered before the Court and on their disclosure statement, MOs 1 to 4 have been recovered. MOs 5 to 7 were recovered from the deceased after postmortem. MOs 8 & 9 are the soil with and without bloodstain, recovered from the place of occurrence. All these material objects, except MO4, have been sent for chemical analysis and the serology report reveal the presence of human blood group 'O' in all the material objects and the serology report also reveals that the blood group of the deceased is 'O' group.

17. The appellants stressed upon this Court to view the evidence of PW2 with the evidence of PW10 and the Doctor [PW16], who conducted postmortem. The Doctor [PW16] in the autopsy had noted 200 gms of partly digested cooked food particles and a pungent odour from the Stomach, whereas, PW10 had stated that all of them had lunch at 01.00 pm and while leaving the home at 07.30 pm, they had coffee alone. When the Doctor had noted down 200 gms of partly digested food particles, then the entire defence version as regards the presence PWs 1 & 2 along with the deceased is highly doubtful. By referring to the pungent odour, the appellants pleaded that the deceased would have consumed liquor and quarreled with some unknown persons and those persons might have committed the offence.

18. This theory of the appellants cannot be accepted when the Doctor [PW16] has deposed that the pungent odour from the food particles is not that of alcohol. With regard to the partly digested food particles, it is to be noted that according to PW10, at about 07.30 pm, they had coffee. The occurrence took place at 09.00 pm.

There is no material as to whether the deceased had taken any food prior to the occurrence. In the complaint [Ex.P1], there is no reference to the same. PW1, the author of the complaint, turned hostile. We cannot expect that each and every minute details has to be stated in the complaint [Ex.P1] and there is no question with regard to the consumption of food by the deceased prior to the occurrence, from PW2, during trial.

19. Relying upon the cross examination of the Photographer [PW14], the appellants attempted to plead that at the time of taking the photograph at 11.00 pm, the body of the deceased was not there in the place of occurrence and therefore, they doubted the prosecution case. PW14 has taken photographs both in the place of occurrence as well in the Hospital. In the cross examination, he has stated that around 11.00 pm, he took photograph at the place of occurrence and the body of the deceased was not there at that time. But, according to the investigation officer, he sent the body to the Mortuary around 12'o clock, after preparing the Observation Mahazer. The case was registered at about 10.00 pm and PW21 has received the intimation about the registration of the case only at 11.00 pm.

Thereafter, he called PW14 to go to the place of occurrence to take photographs. During the chief examination, PW14 has deposed that he was called and intimated by PW21 over phone around 11.00 pm. When he got intimation at about 11.00 pm, it is not possible for him to reach the place of occurrence and took photographs at 11.00 pm. This discrepancy, in our opinion, does not add strength to the ground raised by the appellants and we cannot disbelieve the prosecution case in toto.

20. The first accused is having a strong motive against the deceased, as the deceased stood as a witness in the Ahimas murder case against him. The evidences of PWs 8 & 21 establish the same. The appellants 2 & 3 are not accused in the Ahimas murder case, but, in respect of the present case at hand, their presence in the place of occurrence and commission of offence by inflicting injuries on the deceased is stated by PWs 2 & 3. When direct evidence is available for the occurrence, the motive is insignificant insofar as accused 2 & 3 are concerned.

21. The source of light which was disputed by the appellants is not having much weight, when the prosecution has established the same by examining PW13, wireman from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that apart, the lamp-post is also mentioned just opposite to the place of occurrence in the sketch [Ex.P25].

22. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the infirmities pointed out by the appellants are not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution, so as to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.1 of 2011 dated 26.04.2017 and the same is

accordingly, confirmed. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellants are on bail, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure the appellants and confine them, in accordance with law.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1)The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2)The Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi, Kanyakumari District 3)The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District.

4)The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

5)The Director General of Police, Chennai.

6)The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari Distric at Nagercoil.

7)The Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhy Police Station, Kanyakumari.

8)The Section Officer, Criminal Records Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

9)The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.A.Balaji, Advocate, SR.No.58059 +1cc to Mr.J.Ashok, Advocate, SR.No. 58446 Crl.A.(MD)No.198 of 2017 01.04.2019 gk KK/SAR/08.05.2019/ 11P- 12C