V.Edward, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED ON : 01.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.A(MD)No.266 of 2017 V.Edward ... Appellant / Sole Accused Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

[Crime No.691 of 2014] ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Sessions Case No.30 of 2016, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District and set aside the judgment dated 10.11.2016 and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.30 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli and vide judgment dated 10.11.2016, he was found guilty for the commission of offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC and he was imposed with the following sentences:

S.No Conviction u/s Sentence Simple imprisonment for one month 294(b) Rigorous imprisonment for three months Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years.

The trial Court ordered that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal relevant for the purpose of deciding the case, in brief, are as follows: 2.1. P.W.1 is the cousin brother of the deceased Palanisamy and both of them were eking out their livelihood as Auto Drivers at Kumaran Nagar Auto Stand at Trichy. The appellant/sole accused is also an Auto Driver, belonging to the same stand. It is the case of the prosecution that three months prior to the date of occurrence, on 10.12.2014, there was a wordy altercation between the appellant/accused and the deceased Palanisamy and when the Accelerator cable/wire of the appellant/accused's auto was found cut, at about 05.00 pm on 10.12.2014, the appellant/accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased Palanisamy questioning him whether he has taken the auto key, it was replied in negative and PWs.

1 to 3 had intervened and pacified the appellant/accused. At about 07.00 pm on 10.12.2014, the deceased Palanisamy went to Abi Meena Fancy Store run by PW.6 Saravanan for the purpose of recharging his mobile phone and PWs.1 to 3 were also present. At that time, the appellant/accused came in his auto and on seeing Palanisamy, went to the shop of PW.6 and caught hold of the deceased by his shirt and abused him by using unparliamentary words and took a knife (MO.1) and inflicted a single stab wound on his abdomen. Palanisamy fell down and the appellant / accused fled away from the scene of crime with the knife. PW.s 1 to 3 took the injured Palanisamy in the auto of PW.4 to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli and subsequently, PW.1 has also informed the wife of Palanisamy, namely PW.5, about the said incident. PW.

1 proceeded to the Woraiyur Police Station and lodged a written complaint under Ex.P.1 to PW.17, who was the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who upon receipt of the same, has registered a case in Crime No.691 of 2014, for the commission of offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC, at about 21.00 hours on 10.12.2014. The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P18. PW.17 dispatched the original complaint [Ex.P.1] and the First Information Report [Ex.P18] to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli and also forwarded the copies to his official superior.

2.2. PW.18 was the Inspector of Police attached to the Woraiyur Police Station and upon receipt of the FIR, commenced the investigation at about 9.30 hours on 10.12.2014 and went to the scene of crime at 21.45 hours and in the presence of PW.8 and Krishnamoorthy, has prepared Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar, marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.5 respectively. At about 22.45 hours on 10.12.2014, in the presence of the very same witnesses, he recovered sample earth (M.O.8) and blood stained earth(M.O.7) under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.6 and also the auto M.O.1 and sent the articles under Form 95 to the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court and it was marked as Ex.P.20. P.W.18 had examined P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.8 and Krishna Moorthy and recorded the statement under Section 161(3) CrPC.

2.3. P.W18, upon receipt of the secret information as to the availability of the accused at about 10.00am on 11.12.2014, went to the Banyan tree near Kulumayee Amman temple and effected the arrest of appellant/accused in the presence of P.W.7 and another and he voluntarily came forward to give confession statement and as per the admissible portion of the confession statement, marked as Ex.p.4, he took M.O.1 knife and cloth worn by him (M.Os.2 and 3) which were hidden inside the throne bush and those articles were recovered / seized under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P.3. At about 13.50 hours on the same day, he received the dead intimation of Palani alias Palanisamy. At 14.15 hours, he altered the Sections to 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC and dispatched the altered FIR through P.W.

14 to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the alteration report was marked as Ex.P.21 and the articles seized pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession were also dispatched under Ex.P.22. P.W.18 on 10.12.2014 has conducted the inquest at about 14.30 hours at the mortuary in the presence of Panchayatars and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P.23.

2.4. P.W.18 made arrangements to send the body of the deceased for postmortem through P.W.15, Head Constable. 2.5. P.W.10 is the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, attached to K.A.P.V.G.Medical College, Tiruchirappalli and he received the body of the deceased along with requisition at about 4.10 pm on 11.12.2014 and commenced the postmortem at about 4.25pm and noted the following ante-mortem injuries: "1.Injection puncture mark injury 0.3 X0.2cmxtissue deep, on right side of neck;(Therapeutic):

2.Two, Surgical intercostal drainage tube wounds each, 3 X 0.5 cmX cavity deep, one on 5th intercostal space and the other on 8th space on left side of chest;(Therapeutic); 3.Sutured, cut injury 3 cm, with intact sutures on back of hand; on removal os sutures, margins of the wound were regular and gapping;

4.Surgical, sutured, vertical wound 20 cm, with intact sutures on midline of abdomen above the level of umbilicus; (Therapeutic); on removal of sutures, margins of the wound were regular and gapping.

5.Surgical drainage tube wound, 3 X 0.5 cm X cavity deep, on left side of abdomen; (Therapeutic) on dissection of chest and abdomen, there was a gapping, perforated injury 2.8 X 0.5 cm intercostal muscle between 11th and 12th ribs; oblique sutured injuries with intact sutures measuring 2 cm on lower lobe of left lung, 2.3cm on front of left lobe of liver and 2 cm on back of left lobe of liver; surgical gel foam kept on the surgical sites; Heart: c/s: All the chambers contained clotted blood: no other abnormalities; right lung, spleen, both kidneys and other internal organs:

c/s congested; no other abnormalities; Stomach Contained thick brown coloured partly digested cooked rice particles, with no definite smell; c/s.mucosa; congested." [extracted as such] 2.6. P.W.10, after the conclusion of the postmortem, opined that "postmortem findings were consistent with history, hospital records and clinical diagnosis suggestive of death due to effects of stab injury to the abdomen" and the postmortem report was marked as Ex.P.7.

2.7. P.W.18 continued with the investigation on 17.12.2014 and examined P.W.7, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, P.W.16 Dr.Mahalakshmi, Casualty Medical Officer Dr.Senthilvel, P.W.14, P.W.1 and P.W.12 and recorded the statements. On 15.02.2015, PW.18 had examined the Typist attached to Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli namely Muthurethinam (P.W.13), Scientist Officer P.W.11 and once again recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.18 after completion of the investigation has filed the final report charging the accused for commission of offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC.

2.8. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy, upon receipt of the final report / charge sheet, took it on file in P.R.C.No.16 of 2015 and issued summons to the appellant / accused and upon his appearance, has furnished him the copies of the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

2.9. The Committal Court, having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, who took it on file in S.C.No.30 of 2010.

2.10. The Sessions Court had issued summons to the appellant / accused and upon his appearance, has framed charges for the commission of offence under Sections 341, 294(b) & 302 IPC and questioned him. The appellant / accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him.

2.11. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, had examined PWs 1 to 18, marked Exs.P1 to 23 and also marked MOs 3 to 10.

2.12. The appellant / accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances tendered by the prosecution against him and he denied it. The appellant / accused did not let-in any oral evidence and marked any exhibits.

2.13. The Trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence as well as other materials, had convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

3. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions.

(i) The prosecution had cited PWs 1 to 4 as eye witnesses and except PW1, rest of the eye witnesses turned hostile. So also the other material witness, namely, PW6.

(ii) The injured Palanisamy, on sustainment of injury, was taken in the Auto of PW4 to the Government Hospital at Trichy and he was examined by PW18 and the Accident Register, marked as Ex.P17, would disclose that the injured was taken to the said Hospital by PWs.2 & 4 only. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that PW1 also accompanied them to the Hospital and subsequently, went to the Woraiyur Police Station and lodged the complaint [Ex.P1] cannot be believed at all.

(iii) PW1, in the cross examination, would admit that at the time of conducting the inquest by the investigation officer [PW18], he was also present and he was not examined by the police and nonexamination of the eye witness at the time of conducting the inquest is also fatal to the case of prosecution. It is also the evidence of PW1 that immediately after admitting the injured in the Government Hospital, Police came to the spot and they examined PWs 2 to 4 and he was not examined and the details with regard to the examination of PWs 2 to 4 and the statements recorded from them did not see the light of the day and it was the earliest information as to the commission of the offence and since the said information has been totally eradicated, the entire investigation has commenced based upon the complaint given by PW1 to PW17, the very foundation laid by the prosecution, got crumbled.

(iv) PW1 would not have seen the occurrence for the reason that though the First Information Report came to be lodged within two hours, it reached the Court only at 9 am on 11.12.2014, with a delay of 12 hours and despite PW17 was specifically questioned as to the reason for belated dispatch, he has failed to offer any explanation and the said time has been utilized to interpolate the First Information Report for the purpose of naming the appellant / accused and therefore, it is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(v) Though the conviction can be recorded based upon the solitary testimony of PW1, still it requires corroboration to support his testimony, especially in the light of the fact that he happens to be the cousin brother of the deceased and alternately, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant / accused that there was a wordy altercation between the appellant / accused and the deceased and on the date of occurrence, coupled with the fact that it was a single stab wound, the act of the appellant / accused falls within the exception 180 to Section 300 IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for modification of the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit the testimony of PW1 is in

consonance with the complaint [Ex.P1] and the complaint came to be lodged very shortly and as to the belated dispatch of the relevant documents to the Court, PW17 has also offered plausible explanation and therefore, it cannot be said on account of the delayed dispatch of the First Information Report and the materials documents, some interpolations have been done. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the testimony of PW1 was natural, cogent and trustworthy and it is also amply corroborated through scientific evidence and the trial Court, on every consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, has rightly reached the conclusion of guilt and awarded the sentence and accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.

5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. The points for consideration, are:

1)Whether the prosecution, through oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had proved the guilt of the appellant / accused beyond any reasonable doubt? 2)Whether the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is sustainable and if so, whether the appellant / accused is entitled for modification of conviction and sentence?

7. PW1 is the cousin brother of the deceased and his testimony is in consonance with Ex.P1. In the cross examination, PW1 would state that within 10 minutes from the time of occurrence, he along with PWs 2 to 4 took the injured Palanisamy to the Government Hospital and he was unconscious and the Causality Medical Officer asked about the details. He and the persons accompanied told the Doctor that the injured Palanisamy was inflicted with a stab injury and it took place near Kumaran Auto stand. PW1 further stated that he was in the Hospital till 08.30 pm on 10.12.2014 and Police was standing outside and sometime thereafter, had examined PWs 2 to 4. But, they did not examine him and PW1 does not remember whether the statements of PWs 2 to 4 have been recorded in writing by the Police. He would further state that on 11.12.

2014, he was examined by the Police. PW1 further stated that after sustainment of injury, when he lifted his brother, his cloth got blood stain and however, the Police did not ask for / seized the blood stained cloth. While he was examined in the Hospital, MO1 - knife was also shown to him and he was also aware of the fact that on 10.12.2014, at about 11.00 pm, the appellant / accused was arrested. It was the categorical deposition of PW1 that at the time of inquest, he was present and also told the Police as to his name and the relationship with the injured and denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the injured to the Hospital and that he was not an eye witness and Ex.P1 is false and concoct.

not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile witnesses. PW5 is the wife of the deceased and she was only a hearsay witness as to the occurrence took place. PW6 is the owner of Abi Meena Fancy store and at the time of occurrence, the deceased went to the shop for the purpose of recharging his mobile at about 7.00 pm on 10.12.2014 and sometime thereafter, he heard an alarm and also noted the commotion and when he went out, PWs 1 to 4 took Palanisamy in an Auto. PW6 also did not support the case of prosecution and was treated as hostile witness and all the hostile witnesses were cross examined.

8. PW7 has spoken about the arrest of the appellant / accused at about 10 pm on 11.12.2014 and the voluntary confession statement and recovery of incriminating articles in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement. PW16, the Causality Medical Officer, who admitted the injured, in the cross examination would state that he saw the injured, he was in conscious state of mind. PW10, the Doctor who conducted the Autopsy, had opined the deceased died on account of the wounds sustained by him. The Scientific Officer, who was examined as PW11, has deposed that the sample received contained the blood stain of blood group 'B' and the deceased's blood group was also 'B'. PW12, the Assistant Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined to prove that the street light near the locality was burning.

9. PW17, who registered the First Information Report, in the cross examination, would state that the distance between Woraiyur Police Station and the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli and the official residence of the Magistrate would be around three kilometers and the said distance would be covered within 15 minutes and also stated the complaint was registered at about 21 hours on 10.12.2014 and reached the Court on the next day, at 9 am on 11.12.2014. PW17 further deposed that immediately he became aware of the occurrence, he did not go, however, the Inspector of Police went to the Hospital.

10. PW18, the Investigation officer, in the cross examination would state that only after the receipt of the case records, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Tiruchirappalli and however, he cannot examine Palanisamy as he was unconscious and during the course of investigation, he became aware of the fact that the injured was taken to the Government Hospital by PWs 1 to 4 and conceded that as per the Accident Register marked as Ex.P17, the injured was admitted by PWs 2 & 4. PW18 has specifically denied the suggestion that prior to the registration of the First Information Report, neither he nor the police personnel went to the Hospital and he also denied the suggestion that at about 11 pm on 10.12.2014, he took the accused into custody and he has also been put a specific question as to the contradiction elucidated by the testimony of PWs 1 & 2. Insofar as the presence of PW1 at the time of inquest is

concerned, he did not state that PW1 was the eyewitness. He denied the suggestion that the complaint was received only after 06.00 am on 11.12.2014.

11. The appellant / accused was questioned under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating circumstances tendered against him.

12. It is the categorical testimony of PW1 in his cross examination that he along with PWs 2 to 4 took the injured to the Government Hospital at Trichy and he was examined by PW16, the Causality Medical Officer and the Accident Register issued by her was marked as Ex.P.17 and it would disclose that the injured was admitted by PWs.2 & 4. The said materials in no way help the case of the appellant /accused, for the reason, it is the duty of the Casualty Medical Officer, to record the nature of illness suffered by the concerned person and the whatever the statement given by the injured person or persons accompanied him, as to the identity of the persons and the nature of the commission of offence is totally immaterial. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that immediately after admitting the injured Palanisamy in the hospital, the Police came to the spot and examined PWs. 2 to 4 and he was not at all examined and he did not remember whether the statements of PWs.2 to 4 were recorded in writing.

13. It is a well settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of the eye witness, if it inspires confidence and also corroborates by other witnesses. In the case on hand Pws.2 to 4 who have stated to have witnessed the occurrence have turned hostile, so also PW.6, whose shop was located very near to the place of occurrence

14. It is also to be noted at this juncture, PW.1 in his cross examination was very specific that Police came to the spot immediately after admitting the injured in the hospital and they did not record his statement, however, enquired Pws.2 to 4, but he does not remember anything in writing was recorded. PW.17 the Sub Inspector of police, who registered the First Information Report was put a specific question as to whether he rushed to the hospital immediately after he became aware of the incident and he replied by stating that the Inspector of Police had gone to the hospital. PW.18 Investigation Officer stated that prior to the commencement of the investigation, neither he nor the Police personnel went to the hospital.

15. It is to be noted at this juncture, it is the case of murder on assault and as and when medical cases were referred to the Government hospital intimation to that effect would normally emanate from the police who are attached to the hospital to the jurisdictional police.

16. As already pointed out it is the categorical evidence of PW.1 that within 15 minutes of admitting the injured in the hospital, the police came to the hospital. The statements recorded by the Police from Pws.2 to 4 did not see the light of the day. The FIR, based on the complaint came to be registered at 21 hours on 10.12.2014 and it reached the Court within two hours. Further, the statements of material witness, though examined on the same day, did reach the Court only at about 21 hours on 10.12.2014 and despite the specific question was put to PW.17, who is the Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR, has failed to offer any explanation as the belated despatch of the FIR.

17. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture, it is the categorical evidence of PW.1, that he was also present at the time of inquest, but he was not examined. A specific question was put to PW.18 in that regard and he answered it by saying that in the inquest report, he has not recorded the fact that PW1 was the eye witness to the occurrence. PW1 was an eye witness to the occurrence and despite his presence at the time of inquest, he was not examined by PW18 and no plausible explanation was offered, for not doing so. PW.18 would also depose that prior to the registration of the First Information Report, neither he nor any Police personnel gone to the Hospital, whereas the testimony of PW17, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report is otherwise.

The material documents were reached the Judicial Magistrate Court on the next day, ie., on 11.12.2014 at about 9 hours, but, the First Information Report came to be registered on 10.12.2014 at about 21 hours. As has been pointed out already, despite a specific question was put as to the belated dispatch of the documents, no plausible explanation has been offered by PW.17.

18. A Division Bench of this Court in Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar in re reported in 1974 L.W. (Crl) has laid down the following proposition.

"It is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub-Magistrate. The Station-House Office should record the time of actual despatch of the various documents in the various registers, particularly, the statement recorded under S.154 of the Crl.P.C. On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, nothing there in the time and date of the receipt of those documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Therefore, as the Manual of Instructions for the Guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State does not contain any instructions to the Magistrate in this regard, we suggest that the same may be brought upto date by incorporating in the circulars which had been issued from time to time for the guidance of the Magistrates. The following are documents of special

importance which should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrates and they should bear the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date of their receipt:

1.The original report or complaint under S.154 of the Crl.P.C.

2.The printed form of the F.I.R (First Information Report) prepared on the basis of the said report or complaint.

3.Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest.

4.Memo sent by the Station House Officers to Doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment 5.Memo sent by the Doctor to the Police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death-memo sent by the Doctor to the Police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries. 6.Observations mahazars and mahazars for the recovery of material objects, search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act, etc, prepared in the couse of investigation.

7.The statements of witnesses recorded under S.161

(3) of the Crl.P.C.

8.Form No.91, accompanied by material objects"

19. Dispatch of material documents to the jurisdictional Court with much less time is for the purpose of ensuring that no tampering or interpolation takes place. But, in the case on hand, no tenable explanation has been offered by the prosecution, as to the belated dispatch of the material documents.

20. In the light of the facts and in view of the categorical evidence of PW.1 that he was present in the hospital and despite his presence in the hospital, he was not examined by the Police and the statements recorded by the Police from PWs.2 to 4 did not see the light of the day, coupled with the fact that the delayed dispatch of the First Information Report and the material documents from the police station to the jurisdictional Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view that the foundation on which, the case was built, became weak. It is also fortified by the fact that despite the presence of PW.1/eyewitness at the time of inquest, he was not examined by PW.18 and when a specific question was put to him, he

answered it by saying that in the inquest report, it has not been stated that PW1 was the eyewitness.

21. Though conviction can be recorded and sentence be awarded based on the documents on the sole testimony of the eye witnesses, it has not been corroborated by other eyewitnesses namely PWs.2 to 4, who turned hostile. The owner of the shop in whose vicinity the crime said to have been committed, also turned hostile.

22. As regards the arrest of the accused and recovery, pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement, it is the evidence of PW.1 that he became aware of the availability of the appellant in the police station in the night hours on 10.12.2014, whereas, according to the prosecution, he was arrested on the next day at about 9.00 am on 11.12.2014. No doubt, the scientific evidence would disclose that the deceased died on account of homicidal injury, the above said infirmities pointed out have shaken the foundation laid down by the prosecution.

23. In the light of the infirmities pointed out, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence on the part of the appellant / accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

24. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that though the appellant/accused was granted suspension of sentence, he continued to be incarceration as he could not furnish sureties.

25. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, vide judgment dated 10.11.2016 in SC No.30 of 2016 are set aside. The appellant / accused is acquitted of all charges in respect of the present case. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant / accused and he shall be released forthwith, unless his detention or custody is required in connection with any other case / proceedings. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) TO

1. THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

2. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.IV, TRICHY

3. DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPALI

5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 4

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY

7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT

8. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WORAIYUR POLICE STATION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

9. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI COPY TO:

THE SECTION OFFICER, CRIMINAL SECTION(2 COPIES), MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADRAI +1.CC. To Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate in SR No.72531 Crl.A(MD)No.266 of 2017 01.07.2019 GK/DSK MK (31.07.2019) 12P 13C