Habib Rahman v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 01.08.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR and Crl.M.P(MD) No.5664 of 2023 Habib Rahman ... Appellant / Sole accused -vsThe Inspector of Police Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District Crime No.501 of 2017 ... Respondent / Complainant Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction dated 15.12.2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul in S.C. No.104 of 2018 and acquit the appellant.

For Appellant :

Mr.Mayaperumal.S For Respondent :

Mr.A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/22

J U D G M E N T

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J., This Criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment, dated 15.12.2021, made in S.C.No.104 of 2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.

2. For the sake of convenience, the accused is herein after referred to as "appellant ''

3. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 I.P.C.

Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment The sentences shall run concurrently 3(i) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant married the daughter of the defacto-Complainant namely one Rabia 12 years ago and due to their wedlock they were blessed with one male child Mohammed Yusuf and one female child namely Hasina Fathima. Since the appellant failed to maintain his family properly the deceased Rabia worked as a helper in a Plastic shop, the who was against his wife going for work had warned his wife Rabia, that the said Rabia without heeding to the warning of her 2/22

husband continued to go for work and due to that the appellant had developed an enmity with his wife. Thereafter on 05/10/2017 at about 8.30 A.M. in the place of occurrence situated at Pallivasal Street, Kottaipatti Road, Old Batlagundu, Nilakottai Taluk of Dindigul District the appellant scolded his wife Rabia saying 'eP Ntiyf;F NghfhNjdh Nfl;fkhl;bah eP nrj;jhjhz;b vdf;F epk;kjp" and assaulted her with a knife over her neck, then he restrained her hands and again he assaulted his wife forcibly with a knife over her neck, due to the said attack the deceased Rabia sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot itself. (ii) On 05.10.2017 at about 09-00 hours, the Defacto-Complainant lodged Ex.P.1/ Complaint before the Station House Officer of Batlagundu P.S., that on receipt of said Complaint/Ex.P.1 , P.W.

19- Nagarajan, the then S.I. of Police of Batlagundu P.S. had registered First Information Report/ Ex.P.9 against the appellant in Cr.No.501/2017 for the offence U/s 302 I.P.C. P.W.20 took up the case for investigation, visited the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses namely one Mansoor and Kathick, prepared Observation Mahazar/Ex.P.2 and Rough Sketch/Ex.P.10, and seized Blood Stained Cement Floor, Sample Cement Floor from inside the house of the deceased, Blood Stained Cement Floor and Sample Cement Floor, Blood Stained Earth and Sample Earth from the outside of the house of the deceased through Ex.P.3- Athatchi, that he enquired the witnesses of this case and recorded their Statements U/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. individually.

Thereafter he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and Panchayathars and prepared Inquest Report, then he gave request to the Duty Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Batlagundu to conduct Postmortem of the deceased through concerned police. Thereafter he arrested the appellant in this case and recorded the voluntary Confession Statement given by the appellant in the presence of the witnesses,. Based on the said Confession Statement, he recovered the blood stained dresses of the appellant, then he had seized M.O.1 as produced by the appellant through Ex.P.5- Athatchi in the presence of the witnesses. P.W.

20 thereafter sent the appellant for remand and the case properties to the court through the concerned police and he had seized the blood stained dresses worn by the deceased and after completion of Post Mortem sent the same to the Court through Form-95 and he submitted a requisition to send the case properties to the R.F.S.Lab at Madurai for Chemical analysis. Thereafter he enquired the Official witnesses in this case and recorded the statements U/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. separately, and after completing investigation, P.W.20 filed Charge-Sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable U/s 302 I.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, who had taken cognizance of the final report in P.R.C.No. 1 of 2018 issued summons and after appearance of the appellant and compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the 4/22

case was taken on file in S.C.No.104 of 2018 and made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant as stated above and when questioned, the appellant pleaded not guilty.

5. In order to prove the charges the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and marked exhibits Exs.P1 to P12 and cited material objects M.O.s.1 to 3 were marked.

6. After completing the examination of witnesses, when the incriminating materials and circumstances were put to the appellant, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the evidence of the prosecution side as false, however, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

7. After hearing both sides and perusing the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the learned Trial Judge, by Judgment dated 15.12.2021, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal.

5/22

8. Heard Mr.S.Mayaperumal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A. Thiruvaidkumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the Judgment of the Court below as well as the evidence and materials placed on record.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the trial court failed to take into consideration the material contradictions and the exaggerations in the evidences of the witnesses. The presence of P.W1 to 3 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and the manner in which Ex P1 complaint was lodged is highly doubtful and the genesis of the case itself is suspicious. As per the evidence of PW1 who is said to be an eye witness the appellant is said to have dropped the weapon M.O1 at the scene of occurrence whereas it is the evidence of PW10/VAO the appellant is said to have given an extra judicial confession and based on that the weapon M.O 1 was seized near Anjaneya Temple Batlagundu thereby making the arrest, confession and recovery doubtful.

The learned counsel would further submit that though there are several grounds available in the appeal he is restricting his submissions to the question of sentence. He would submit that the evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that the overt act of the appellant inflicting injuries on his wife/deceased was during a fit of anger in heat of passion during a verbal quarrel and altercation and his act would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and not an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.

prosecution has to prove that the appellant had clear intent to commit the death of his wife and it has not been established by the prosecution. Admittedly weapon used is kitchen knife used for cutting fruits and there is nothing on evidence to suggest that the appellant had taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and thereby in the alternate would pray for reduction of sentence.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife in the presence of his mother-in-law/P.W.1 and children/P.W2 and P.W.3. P.W.1/mother-in-law and P.W2 and P.W.3./Children have vividly spoken about the incident. Further the prosecution by examining P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O. 1 to 3 has proved the charges against the appellant. Further as per post mortem report the death is on account of injuries caused by M.O.1/knife. The prosecution by scientific evidence has proved the case.

PW7 and his wife PW8 have deposed about the appellant having quarreled with the deceased on the previous night and had told that he would be at peace only after killing his wife and further the appellant had inflicted two injuries with knife on the left side neck of the deceased and thereby the case of the petitioner cannot be brought within the ambit of Exemption 4 to Section 300 IPC. The trial Court has rightly finding the guilt of appellant had convicted him as stated above and thereby he would seek for dismissal of appeal.

7/22

11. In reply the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the exaggerated evidence of PW7 and his wife PW8 cannot be believed since PW1to PW3 who were also present along with the deceased and the appellant at the house of PW7 on the previous night have not deposed about any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on the previous night and the the appellant had no premeditation to commit the murder and it was only during a sudden fight and further the number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. As per the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W.3 who are witnesses to the occurrence the incident had happened during sudden quarrel and wordy altercation and that the weapon used is also only a kitchen knife used for cutting fruits and would insist for modification of sentence.

12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and consciously gone through the evidence and material on record.

13. It is case of uxoricide. The prosecution has examined 20 witnesses and presented 12 Exhibits and 3 Material Objects. P.W.1 is the 8/22

mother of the deceased. The appellant is her son-in-law. The deceased was married to the appellant one year ago and they were blessed with two children. P.W.1 has deposed that when she came to the house of the appellant to leave the children the deceased had asked the appellant to give some money for the family for which the appellant replied that he had no money and told her he will be happy if he kills her. On hearing this P.W. 1,deceased and her children went to the house of Thangapandi/P.W.7 and stayed there. Thereafter on the next day morning the deceased went to her house and at that time the appellant asked her why she had come there, for which she replied, that she had come to send the children to school. Thereafter the appellant took the knife and stabbed on the neck of the deceased, due to which she died in the spot itself.

The appellant dropped the knife in the place of occurrence and ran away. The people who were near the house informed to the police and the police came there. The police recorded the statement and obtained her signature in the complaint. The said complaint is marked as Ex.P.1. The knife used for murder is marked as M.O.1.

14. P.W.2 is the minor son of the appellant and the deceased. The trial Court after examining him and being satisfied had recorded his evidence. P.W.2 had deposed that his mother is no more. When they returned to their home after summer vacation along with P.W.1 there was a quarrel between his father and mother/deceased, hence they went to the house of P.W.7 and 9/22

slept there. On the next day when they went to their house they saw their father stabbing their mother in the neck with knife and thereafter their mother died. He went to the house of the P.W.7 to say about the incident since he was not there he went to house of another uncle and brought him there and some of the villagers have also come there. Thereafter his father surrendered before the police station.

15. P.W.3 is the minor daughter of the appellant and the deceased. The trial Court after examining him and being satisfied had recorded her evidence. She has deposed that her mother is no more. She along with his brother returned to their home after summer vacation along with P.W.1, at that time there was a quarrel between her father and mother/deceased, hence they went to the house of P.W.7 and slept there. Her father also came there and ate there. P.W.7 also advised him. On the next day when they went to their house they saw their father stabbing their mother in the neck with knife and thereafter he threw the knife and ran away. In the mean time some persons had called the police and made a call to the hospital. The police enquired her. She along with her brother went to the hospital where the doctors informed that their mother died. The police enquired her.

16. P.W.4, P.W5 and P.W.6 are neighbours. They deposed that on 05.10.2017 around 8.30 to 8.45 a.m.,the son the appellant raised alarm stating that his father is stabbing his mother with knife, hence they came 10/22

out and saw there. At that time they saw the deceased coming out of her house and falling down. They did not go near the place of occurrence. The police enquired them and P.W.4 and 6 did not see the appellant in the place of occurrence.

17. P.W.7 is the yet another neighbor and he did not know about the occurrence. One day prior to the occurrence at about 9.00 pm., the deceased along with her mother and children and the appellant went to the house of P.W.7, where the deceased told that the appellant is going to kill her and requested him to help him. He advised the appellant and gave dinner for them. At that the appellant told him that he would be at peace if only he kills his wife and went from his house to sleep in the mosque. Thereafter the deceased her mother and children slept there. The next day he sent the deceased along with her children to their house and went to Thirumangalam. When he was on the way to Thirumangalam he heard the news that the appellant had killed his wife. On hearing the news he came to his house and saw the body of the deceased being taken to the hospital.

18. P.W.8 is the wife of P.W.7 and she had corroborated the evidence of P.W.7

19. P.W.9 is the witness for observation mahazar and he had deposed about the preparation of observation mahazhar/Ex.P.2 and athatchi/Ex.P.3 11/22

for seizure of blood stained cement floor, sample cement floor from inside the house of the deceased, blood stained cement floor and sample cement floor, blood stained earth and sample earth from outside the house of the deceased.

20. P.W.10 is the then Village Administrative Officer and she deposed about recording of confession statement from the appellant and preparation of athatchi for recovery of M.O.1/knife by the investigation officer. She prepared athachi/Ex.P.5

21. P.W.11 is a hearsay witness and she has not supported the case of prosecution and thereby she had been treated as hostile.

22. P.W.12 is the Special Sub Inspector of police who has send the Express FIR in Crime No. 501 of 2017 to the higher officials and Court as per the direction of the Investigation officer.

23. P.W.13 is the Head Constable who had accompanied with the Inspector of police. He deposed that there were blood strains in the dress of the children of the deceased, hence gave another dress for them and handed over the dress to the investigation officer

24. P.W.14 is the Head Constable who had taken the body of the 12/22

deceased for post mortem and identified the same for post mortem and having taken the viscera for chemical examination and handed over the body of the deceased to his relatives after post mortem. 25.PW.15 is the Grade I police constable who had taken the material objects to the Regional Forensic Laboratory for examination

26. P.W. 16 is the photographer who had taken photos of the deceased and through him M.O.2/photos and M.O.3/CD were marked. 27.P.W.17 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and through him Ex.P.6/Post mortem certificate is marked. He deposed that he conducted post mortem on 05.10.2017 at about 3.05 pm., During post mortem he noted down the following injuries on the body of the deceased.

a) lacerated wound seen on the left side of the neck about 4X3X1 cm just below the mandible arch b) stab injury seen left side neck near to midline of neck just 1cm over the jugular notch about 5X3X6.5cm with regular margin. Internal Examination:

a)Head: skull intact, Meninses- Normal, Brain- Intact pale b) Neck: Stab injury seen left side neck near to midline of neck, just 10m above the jagular notch, about 5X3X6.5cm with irregular margin. 13/22

c) Trachea and Larynx: Normal, Hyoid bone: Normal, right side neck blood vessels and muscle: Normal left side neck vessels and muscle was cut d)Chest: No rib, B/L lungs: Normal, Heart- intact e)Abdomen: Stomach-empty, Liver and Spleen: Normal C/s.Congested B/l.Kidney, intestine- Normal, Bladder- Empty Time of Death: 6- 10 hours prior to autopsy Cause of Death: The deceased would have appear to have died of blood loss caused by cut injury on the neck.

28. P.W.18 is the Junior Scientific Officer of Regional Forensic Expert Madurai. He has deposed that on 9.10.2017, he had received the material objects in Crime No.501 of 2017 contained in a wooden box through the Police Constable Thiru.Perumal which were four pieces of Cement mortar numbered as (1) to (4), two samples of soil, numbered as (5) and (6), Gown (7), (shirt (8), Banian (9) Lungi (10), knife (11), saree (12), skirt (13), blouse

(14) and on examination, items 1, 3, 5 and 7 to 14 contained bloodstains, items 2, 4 and 6 contained no bloodstains and accordingly, report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai. On serological examination, it was found that the bloodstains found in items 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 belong to 'A' group and blood group could not be identified in respect of the bloodstains found in items 3, 5 and 11 and accordingly, serology report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai. The direction of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai is Ex.7. The Biology Report is Ex.P8. 14/22

29. P.W.19 is Special Sub Inspector of police who has registered the First Information Report in Crime No.501 of 2017 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. After registering the First Information Report he sent the original copy of the Court and the other copies to the higher officials and kept the file before the Investigation Officer for further investigation. The First Information Report is marked as Ex.P.9.

30. P.W.20 is the Investigation Officer and he deposed that after receiving the First Information Report he took up the case for further investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazhar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses Manzoor and Karthick. He collected Blood Stained Cement Floor, Sample Cement Floor from inside the house of the deceased, Blood Stained Cement Floor and Sample Cement Floor, Blood Stained Earth and Sample Earth from the outside of the house of the deceased and sent for chemical analysis. On the same day he recorded statements of P.W. 1 to 6 and 9 and recorded their statements. He recovered the dress of Haseena Fathima through athatchi. Thereafter he conducted inquest in respect of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and thereafter he send the body of the deceased to post mortem. He recorded the confession statement of the appellant and through his confession he also recovered some materials objects which were used for murder. He sent the appellant for remand and sent the material objects to 15/22

Court through Form-91. Thereafter he recorded statements of Sathiya and Pandian. He recorded statement of the doctor and scientific expert, special sub Inspector of Police, photographer and recorded their statements. Admitted portion of confession statement is marked as Ex.P.11 and Remand requisition letter is marked as Ex.P.12

31. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant has married the victim Rabia 12 years ago and out of the wedlock they have one male child namely Mohammed Yusuf/P.W.2 and Hasina Fathima/P.W.3. Since the appellant had failed to maintain his family properly the deceased/ his wife had gone for work in a plastic shop against his wish and since the appellant was against his wife going for work there were frequent quarrel between them. While so, on 05.10.2017 at about 8.30 am., the deceased wife,her mother PW1 and Children PW2 and PW3 had returned back from the house of PW7 where they had stayed in the night and the appellant had questioned his wife and at the time a quarrel had ensued between them and at that time the petitioner is said to have inflicted injuries with a knife which was used for cutting fruits.

The evidence present before the trial Court and the facts and circumstances of the case clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased was on account of injuries caused by the appellant. However admittedly as stated above as per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W. 3. The incident had happened during quarrel between the spouses and the weapon M.O 1 used is a kitchen knife for cutting fruits.

32. In this regard, it is useful to refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariappan .Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in (2024)2 SCC 598 has held as follows: 14.Having heard the arguments of both the parties, we find that the evidence presented before the trial court and the facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that the wound caused by the appellant was the reason for the death of the deceased. The High Court also reaffirmed this observation that the injuries with soori-knife caused by the appellant were the reason for the death of the deceased 15.Hence the only question that remains for consideration before us is whether the act of the accused/appellant is culpable homicide amounting to murder or not.

In other words, the question is whether the acts of the accused/appellant would come under Exception 4 to Section 300IPC or would be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 16.This Court in Rampal Singh v.State of U.P.[Rampal Singh v.State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 860] , while altering the offence under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, has elaborately discussed the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. What is held is that classification would be a matter of fact depending upon the evidence led in the trial. Broadly speaking, the factors to be considered are enumerated in para 25 thereof. The same has been reproduced below : (SCC p. 301, para 25) "25.

As we have already discussed, classification of an offence into either part of Section 304 is primarily a matter of fact. This would have to be decided with reference to the nature of the offence, intention of the offender, weapon used, the place and nature of the injuries, existence of premeditated mind, the persons participating in the commission of the crime and to some extent the motive for commission of the crime.

circumstances greatly helps the court in coming to a final conclusion as to under which penal provision of the Code the accused/appellant/appellant is liable to be punished. This can also be decided from another point of view i.e. by applying the "principle of exclusion". This principle could be applied while taking recourse to a two-stage process of determination. Firstly, the Court may record a preliminary finding if the accused/appellant had committed an offence punishable under the substantive provisions of Section 302 of the Code, that is, "culpable homicide amounting to murder". Then secondly, it may proceed to examine if the case fell in any of the Exceptions detailed in Section 300 of the Code. This would doubly ensure that the conclusion arrived at by the court is correct on facts and sustainable in law.

We are stating such a proposition to indicate that such a determination would better serve the ends of criminal justice delivery. This is more so because presumption of innocence and right to fair trial are the essence of our criminal jurisprudence and are accepted as rights of the accused/appellant 17.It would also be apt here to refer to the judgment of Surinder Kumar v.State (UT of Chandigarh)[Surinder Kumar v.State (UT of Chandigarh), (1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348] , wherein this Court had laid down the grounds to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300IPC : (SCC p. 220, para 7) "7.

To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly."

18. In the present case, while looking at the facts and circumstances of 18/22

the case, it can be seen that the appellant had suddenly stabbed the deceased during a heated verbal argument with him and not during a pre planned attack which was carried out with the sole intention of causing the death of the deceased. The previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased had been a contributory factor leading to the verbal altercation but it was not the reason for the accused/appellant to carry out a pre planned fatal attack against the deceased. The appellant had acted "suddenly", in the heat of passion and without a pre planned approach to kill the deceased.

19.Right from the beginning i.e. the prosecution story as set up in the FIR was that initially there was a heated discussion between the parties and in a fit of anger the physical assault took place. Even the ocular testimony is also to the same effect. Although on the same evidence the trial court has acquitted the two coaccused/appellant/appellant and convicted only the appellant. It has also come in evidence that the appellant had caused only one injury whereas other accused/appellant had caused multiple injuries. However, the trial court acquitted the other two accused/appellant.

20. Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence led in the present case that the appellant's overt act of killing the deceased happened during a fit of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300IPC. Moreover, the clear intent needed to prove culpable homicide amounting to murder has also not been established by the prosecution.

33. As stated above while looking into the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that the appellant had suddenly stabbed the deceased during heated verbal quarrel and it was also not a pre planned attack which is carried out with the sole intention of causing death of the deceased. The weapon used is also kitchen knife used for cutting fruits. The appellant had 19/22

acted "suddenly" in the heat of passion . From the evidence it is also seen that the appellant at any point of time had not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Hence it can be safely concluded from the evidence let in the present case and the overt act of the appellant in killing the deceased had happened in a heat of passionate verbal quarrel and would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Moreover prosecution has also failed to establish the clear intent needed to prove culpable homicide amounting to murder.

34. In view of the above the criminal appeal stands partly allowed. In the result, the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C is set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant is directed to serve the remaining period of sentence. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [A.D.J.C.,J.] [K.R.S.,J.] 01.08.2024 Internet :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No aav 20/22

To:

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.

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

3.The Inspector of Police Batlagundu Police Station,Dindigul District

4. The Record keeper Vernacular Records Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 21/22

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

and K. RAJASEKAR, J.

aav

JUDGMENT

IN 01.08.2024 22/22