Rajan v. The Inspecor Of Police

Bail Slip Appellant namely Rajan was released on Bail as per order of this Court dated 23-01-2017 made in CRL.MP(MD)No.3288 of 2016 in CRL.A(MD)No.125 of 2016 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 12.07.2021 DELIVERED ON : 23.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Rajan : Appellant/Sole Accused Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi Police Station, Karur District.

(Crime No.52 of 2013) : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and conviction, dated 10.03.2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, in S.C.No.6 of 2014 and acquit the Appellant.

For Appellant :Mr.R,Maheswaran For Respondent :Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

JUDGMENT

This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur in S.C.No.6 of 2014 dated 10.03.2015.

2. This Criminal Appeal is of the year 2016. When the case came up for hearing on the previous occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant/sole Accused repeatedly. Therefore, Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned Counsel was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant/Accused by the Legal Services Committee attached to the Madurai Bench of this Court and he submitted his arguments orally through virtual mode. 1/11

3. The brief facts, which are relevant for consideration in this appeal, as per the the Prosecution, are as follows: 3.1. The victim herein is a minor daughter of PW-1- Nagarajan and PW-2-Chitra, who was aged about 3 years on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 24.03.2013. The parents of the victim child, i.e PW-1, Nagarajan and PW-2, Chitra, had gone to the house of P.W3 and P.W-4. After the function, when they were returning to their house situated at Salipalayam Street within the limits of K.Paramathi Police Station, their minor daughter was standing in front of the house of the Accused on the very same street and she was crying. When they enquired their child, the child answered that she was playing with two boys in front of the house of the Accused.

At that time, the Accused invited her to come and play inside his house and also she told that he gave chocolates to her. He had taken his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 36 C 8803 (TVS Suzuki Motor Cycle) and took the children for a round on the street and then dropped the two boys on the street and took her inside his house and had sexual intercourse with her and she further stated that she felt pain in her private part. PW-1 and PW-2 found her bleeding from her private part. They immediately took the child to a hospital at Kodumudi, where, PW-11-Dr.Kamalakannan, had seen the child, observing the child at around 11.30 am, and he had cleaned the wound and stitched the tear in the private part. He had opined that the child might have been raped or had been injured accidentally with any sharp edged objects.

PW-1 and PW-2 and the grandmother of the victim child had informed the Doctor that she was playing on the street with two boys. PW-11-Dr.Kamalakannan, had administered anesthesia and treated the child. As per the Doctor, saving the life of the child was more important. Therefore, he administered anesthesia and attended the injury, treated the injury and stitched the torn in the private part of the child. After the child regained consciousness, the child was discharged. The parents took the child to their home. After returning home, on enquiry by PW-1 and PW-2 to their minor daughter, she answered that Lavanya's father had penetrated his penis on her private part. Shocked at the same, they had reported the matter to the PW-15 Sub-Inspector of Police, K.

Paramathi Police Station, Karur District, who had received oral complaint from PW-1-Nagarajan, PW-2-Chitra, under Ex-P-1 and registered the FIR under Ex-P-13 and sent the same to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur and a copy of the same was placed before PW-16-Sakthi Vel, Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi Police Station, Karur.

3.2. PW-16-Sakthivel, Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi Police Station, had by around 06.00 am, proceeded to the house of the Accused at Salipalayam Street and prepared the Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses viz., Natarajan and PW-6-Nallasamy, and also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P-14. He had seized one lungi with blood stains from the house of the Accused and also collected 2/11

blood from the floor of the bath room of the Accused with cotton swab with the help of visiting forensic expert, who accompanied him to the crime scene. Also, he had seized the portion of the floor of the house having blood stains with the help of the forensic expert, PW-17, Bhavani. On the same day, he had arrested the Accused by 11.15 am, near Thirukampuliyur roundtana in front of VKG Auto mobile shop. The Accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses, PW-7, Periyasamy and Karuppasamy. When the Accused was arrested, he had given confession statement in the presence of witnesses. The motorcycle driven by the Accused at the time of his arrest, MO-1, was seized and Seizure Mahazar was also recorded in the presence of the same witnesses.

He had confessed the crime and based on the confession statement, the blood stained lungi of the Accused that was found in the house of the Accused, was recovered behind almirah in the bed room and the Accused was brought to the Police Station and after body search, he was forwarded to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur, with a request for remand and for subjecting him to medical examination, under Ex.P-15 and the medical examination of the victim under Ex.P-16. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur, on a perusal of the FIR under Ex-P-3 and the complaint under Ex-P-1 and the remand request as well as the request for medical examination, had forwarded the Accused to Government Hospital, Karur for medical examination.

On the basis of the requisition from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur, regarding potency of the Accused and his health condition including mental status, PW-10- Dr.Anbalagan had examined the Accused and issued ExP9-Regarding the health status of the Accused and Ex.P-8-Accident register. PW-12-Dr.Rajendran had examined the victim child and issued the medical report under Ex-P-10.

3.3. PW-16 - Investigation Officer had examined the witnesses viz., PW-1 to P.W-7. The Inspector of Police had also recorded the statement of the minor child and the statement of P.W-13 learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Karur, who recorded the statement of the minor child under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W-16 had sent requisition letter under Ex.P-17 for examining the Material Objects to Forensic department and on receipt of the requisition letters from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, he had sent the materials to P.W-17 and P.W-18-Forensic Experts for chemical analysis and they had issued reports under Ex.P-18 to Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-22. After completion of the investigation, he had laid the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

3.4. On receipt of the final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Karur had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 5 (m) r/w. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Section 376(2)(i) IPC and numbered the case as P.R.C.No.12 of 2013. On appearance of the Accused before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur, he had furnished the copies of the final report to the Accused and since the offences 3/11

are triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Karur for trial and the Accused was bound over to the Court of the Special Judge, POCSO Act, at Karur. On receipt of the records in P.R.C.No.12 of 2012 and on appearance of the Accused, the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, at Karur had numbered the case as S.C.No.6 of 2014 and framed the charges under Sections 5 (m) r/w. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.5. When the charges were read over to the Accused and explained in Tamil, the Accused pleaded not guilty of the charges claimed to be tried. Therefore, the trial was ordered. 3.6. During trial, the Prosecution had examined the witnesses viz., P.W-1 to P.W-18 and marked documents under Ex.P-1 to P-22 and M.O-1 to M.O-7. On completion of the Prosecution side evidence, the incriminating materials were put to the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the Accused had denied the incriminating evidence against him. Since he had not examined any witnesses, the arguments of the Prosecution and the defence to the Prosecution arguments were heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur. 3.7.

After hearing the Prosecution and the defence and on assessment of entire materials available, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court had convicted the Accused for the offences under Section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The period of detention already undergone by the Accused during remand was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, the Appellant/Accused had preferred this appeal before this Court.

5. The learned Counsel nominated by the Legal Services Authority for the Appellant/Accused submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the case of the Prosecution is that P.W-1 and P.W-2 are the husband and wife, they had gone to attend a function in the house of P.W-3 and P.W-4 on 24.03.2013. At that time, the child was playing in front of the house of the Appellant/Accused. When they returned, they saw the child crying and she came out from the house of the Accused, and they found her bleeding from her thighs. Immediately, they had taken the child to private Hospital at Kodumudi, wherein P.W-11-Dr.Kamalakannan had treated the child for injuries. On enquiry by P.W-11, the parents of the child had informed the Doctor that the child was injured while playing and was hit with a sharp stick. After reaching home, they had discussion with the relatives P.W-3 and P.W-4, and thereafter, they gave a 4/11

foisted complaint against the Accused/Appellant herein. The Appellant/Accused is married to the younger sister of P.W-3. They were in love and against the wish of the elders in both the family, they eloped and married.

5.1. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused had invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-11-Doctor who treated the victim child and he had stated that the child suffered injury while playing. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that if he had a doubt about the medico legal cases, he could have informed the Police. The parents and the grandmother of the victim girl had stated that the victim girl suffered injury because of the sharpened stick. Therefore, he had not informed the Police. He had obtained written statement from the parents and the grandmother of the victim child regarding the injuries on the child and retained the same with him.

5.2. He further submitted that the complaint was prepared by the respondent police at around 11.30 in the night, whereas, the child was treated by 11.30 a.m., in the morning. He had invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of the victim child. The child referred the Accused as Lavanya's father. In the crossexamination, it was put to the child/victim, "Who is Lavanya's father?", She replied that he is relative. "Who are Arun and Abishek?" She stated that they are friends and she used to play with them. The suggestion by the defence that the victim girl suffered injury when she was playing with the boys, Arun and Abishek, she admitted that she had played with them. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused submitted that it is a foisted case that the child/victim girl in her evidence stated that she had mentioned the name of Lavanya's father on the request of her mother. Therefore, it is clearly a foisted case. Hence, the Judgment of Conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is laible to be set aside.

6. Mr.T.Senthilkumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent replied to the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) had invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the parents of the victim girl viz., P.W1 and P.W2 and her grandmother had taken the victim child to the private Hospital for better treatment. P.W-11 had clearly stated that only to save the life of the victim child, he had administered Anesthesia to the victim child and thereafter, he cleaned the wound and stitched the injuries. He had clearly stated that the injury can be caused either by the sexual intercourse by an adult or a sharpened weapon keeping in contact with the vagina of the victim child by accident. 6.1. In the cross-examination, P.W11 Doctor had clearly stated that the inside wall of the vagina was damaged. To the suggestion of 5/11

the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused that if the child had accidentally fallen while playing, there could have been injuries on the outer side of the genital organ of the child, but there was no such injury seen. To the pointed question that if the case was medico legal case, P.W-11 ought to have informed the police, P.W-11 admitted that if it had been the medico legal case, he could have informed the Police. He also stated that he was not aware as to how the victim child was injured, but from his experience, only there are two possibilities as discussed above.

6.2. P.W-11 Doctor had clearly stated that the parents and the grandmother of the victim girl informed him that they suspected that the child got injury while playing. Therefore, he had not informed the police. This part of evidence was relied on by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). He further submits that no parent will play with the future of their own child by using the child as a weapon to foist a false case against their enemies. 6.3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-11 Doctor who had stated that his attempt was only to safeguard the child, who was bleeding, when she was produced before him. He himself had stated that the injury might have been due to sexual intercourse of a male organ inserting in the private part of the child.

The suggestion of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the child might have been got injury by a sharpened weapon while playing, that was answered by the Doctor- P.W11 who had stated that since there is no injury on the outer part of the vagina, it is not due to the accidental injury by falling on the ground or the sharpened objects. 6.4. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) invited the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of P.W11 that there was no injury on the outer part, where the victim child passes urine, but near the inside wall of the vagina, there was injury.

7. Point for consideration Whether the Judgment of Conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur dated 10.03.2015 in S.C.No.6 of 2014 is perverse, warranting interference by this Court?

8. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and on a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses viz., PW-1 to PW-16, the arguments put-forth by Mr.R.Maheshwaran, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant, cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), there are flaws in the investigation. But that cannot help the Accused. In general criminal cases like offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 IPC., etc., the general rule applies. In a case involving the Accused for 6/11

the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act, which protects the minor children from sexual offences, the general rule in Criminal Laws does not apply. Therefore, the benefit of doubt or the loopholes in the shoddy investigation cannot be granted as a benefit in favour of the Accused. The general principle is that the Accused is presumed innocent until and otherwise the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. That principle will not help the Accused in this case. When the Prosecution had laid all the materials, evidence of PW-1 to PW-18 and Ex-P1 to Ex-P22 and MO-1 to MO-7 are placed before the learned Trial Judge, POCSO Act, the learned Trial Judge is within his discretion to analyse the evidence as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.

The learned Special Judge, Karur had, on an analysis of all the evidence, both oral and documentary, had arrived at a logical conclusion that the Prosecution had proved the charges framed by the learned Special Judge for POCSO Act, under Section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Special Judge had convicted the Accused and found him guilty of the charges under Section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the deposition of victim before the Court is available as PW-14. In the cross examination, the suggestion of the defence that the minor victim was injured when she was playing with the boys, which was thrust into the mouth of the three year old victim, who had accepted the suggestion in childish ignorance, the same will not help the Accused. Also, there were questions by way of suggestions to the child witness, who was aged four years at the time of examination before the Court of Sessions and at the time of occurrence, she was aged three years. To the suggestion in Crossexamination by the learned Counsel for the Accused, "Who is Accused?, the minor victim had answered, "Lavanya's father". To the suggestion, "Who told you Lavanya's father?"

, the child in its childish ignorance, had answered, "mom told me". Also, "When did your mother tell you about Lavanya's father?", in her childish reply, she stated, "yesterday mom told me". The suggestion "Whether Lavanya is your relative?", she had answered in its childish ignorance "Abishek and Arun were playing with me" for which the child had answered. That the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the Accused and getting words according to the design of the case, will not help the Accused. The evidence available with the Prosecution was through PW-11-Dr.Kamalakannan, who had seen the victim at the earliest point of time and had opined that the child might have subjected to sexual assault by adults. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), read the deposition of PW-11Dr.

Kamalakannan, wherein, he had opined that the child would have been subjected to attempt sexual assault. His efforts was to save the child's suffering from bleeding till 11.30 am. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), pointed out that PW-1 and PW-2 saw the child around 10.00 a.m., in front of the house of the Accused.

She was crying and bleeding from her vagina. The parents of the victim-child, in order to save the life of the child, had taken her to a private Hospital at Kodumudi where the child was attended by P.W-11-Dr.Kamalakannan and she was at the hospital at 11.30 am, still the child was bleeding. When the Doctor's effort was to save the life of the child, he had administered anesthesia and attended the child after stitching the wound. He had admitted the child for observation. Only after the child regained consciousness, she was sent home along with her parents. He had stated that the injury might have been with any sharp edged objects.

When PW-1-Nagarajan was subjected to cross examination, the learned Counsel for the Accused had suggested that the minor children might have suffered injuries while playing with two boys, a sharp edged stick might have caused injuries for which, the Doctor had clearly denied the suggestion. If there had been injuries as per the suggestion as put in cross examination, the child might have suffered bruises on the external genitals and thigh. There was no other injury.

10. Further, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), after registering the case and on a request of the Inspector of Police, the learned Judicial Magistrate had issued requisition letters to the Medical Officer on duty at Government Hospital, Karur, where PW-12-Dr.Rajendran had examined the child on 24.03.2013 at 11.30 hours. She was brought to the hospital by 108ambulance. To the Doctor, the child had explained the things that had happened. The Doctor had examined her and found that the injury might have been caused only due to sexual assault and he was examined as PW-10 regarding the medical examination of the child.

He was subjected to cross examination, in which, the fact that the only women doctors are competent to examine the child, was rejected by him, stating that the child was brought to hospital as an emergency case and on emergency duty, he had attended. He also specifically denied the suggestion that while playing, the child might have suffered injuries while falling on a rough ground, where a sharp edged objects might have caused the injury. He had specifically denied the suggestion stating that there are no bruises on the other parts. Regarding the said suggestion, he had clearly stated that the mother of the child had narrated the incident, who would have also tutored the child. On medical examination, what was stated by the child was accepted by the Doctor. Therefore, the evidence of the child was proved through medical examination.

11. The presumption under POCSO Act, is against the Accused as per Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. "Section 29 of the POCSO Act casts a duty on the Special Court that the offence alleged against the Accused is presumed that such occurrence took place unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, the burden is on the Accused to disprove the presumption in favour of the Prosecution." Once the Prosecution had placed all the relevant materials before the Special Court under POCSO Act and before- ever arguments had been heard, the 8/11

Accused is given a chance to let in evidence to disprove his case, so that the presumption available in favour of Prosecution is altered. Here, in this case, the burden of proof on the Prosecution had been discharged by the Prosecution through PW-1 to PW-7, Ex-P1 to Ex-P22, MO-1 to MO-7. Therefore, the presumption is in favour of the Prosecution. When the Accused is aware of that, the materials available under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is against him, while he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by the learned Special Judge, and it is for the Accused to offer explanation. He had also offered an explanation.

12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the statement offered by the Accused in this case will be helpful if it is an offence under Sections 302, 307, 326 I.P.C., and such other similar cases. But, in a case under POCSO Act, it is for the Accused to rely on the portion of the evidence of the witnesses to discharge the burden after the Prosecution evidence is closed. Again, in this case, he had used the name of the minor boys, who were available before the house of the Accused on the date of occurrence. The names of boys were put in cross examination of the victim child, as Abishek and Arun. The said boys were not examined by the Accused as defence witnesses. Not only that, the Accused himself had avoided witness box.

Therefore, the presumption available under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 54 of Indian Evidence Act, are all against the Accused. Therefore, the fear of the Accused and the defence of the Accused that the Accused had been implicated due to the vengeance, will not hold good. Not only that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), no responsible individual will exploit the injury of their own daughter by implicating a person as though their daughter had the fear, and that would not amount to fertile imagination. No responsible parents will accept an injury of his/her daughter for causing damage to the future of the child. Therefore, such fear of the defence had to be rejected.

13. From the point of view of normal human conduct, the defence placed by the Accused regarding the charges framed against him for an injury caused on the child, cannot at all be accepted. The child had expressed to the parents regarding the offence, based upon which, the child was treated in the Hospital. The Doctors both, PW11 -Dr.Kamalakannan, Private Doctor at Kodumudi and PW-12Dr.Rajendran, had clearly stated in their evidence that the injury might have been due to sexual assault on the child. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, it is seen that he had discussed the evidence in the light of the defence put forth by the learned Counsel for the Accused and rejected the defence mentioned by the Accused. In Paragraph 11 of the judgment, the learned Judge had discussed the evidence available through child victim and the other witnesses. particularly, the Doctors' evidence in paragraphs 12 to 22 and arrived at a conclusion in paragraph 23 and 24. 9/11

14. The learned Trial Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence available before him and arrived at a logical deduction that the charges framed against the Accused, had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down rulings regarding the disposal of the Police, wherein, the appellate Court has the discretion to analyse the evidence including all the materials available before the learned Trial Judge. If the learned Judge, on an analysis of the evidence and all other materials and on assessment of the same, arrives at a logical deduction based on proper appreciation of evidence as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Judge shall not be disturbed by the Appellate Court.

Further, in the said Rulings and in the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is stated that even on the same set of evidence and all other relevant materials, even if the appellate Court arrives at an opposite view than that of the view arrived by the learned Trial Judge, the Appellate Court shall not disturb the findings of the learned Trial Judge, if the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge was on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellate Judge shall interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Judge only if they are found to be perverse. Herein, if the said rule is applied, the finding of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Karur, is found to be not perverse, as there has been proper appreciation of evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act.

Therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused is rejected by this Court. The learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Karur had also discussed the rulings cited by both side Counsels and had distinguished the facts of the case before him and arrived at a logical deduction, thereby, concluding that the charges framed against the Accused under Sections 5 (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act are proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

16. The Special Judge under POCSO Act, Karur had also pointed out the Accused had not discharged the burden cast upon him as per the provisions of the POCSO Act, in the light of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Under those circumstances, the charges that were framed by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Karur, were proved by the Prosecution. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had held the Accused guilty of the charges under Section 5 (m) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

17. In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered against the Appellant/Accused and in favour of the respondent/Prosecution. The Judgment of Conviction and Sentence of Imprisonment awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur dated 10.03.2015 in S.C.No.6 of 2014, is not perverse warranting interference by this Court. 10/11

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The Judgment of Conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur dated 10.03.2015 in S.C.No.6 of 2014 is confirmed. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur is directed to issue warrant against the Appellant/Accused to forward him to Prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused by judgment dated 10.03.2015 in S.C.No.6 of 2014. The period of detention already undergone by the Appellant/Accused is set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) cmr To 1.The Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi Police Station, Karur District.

2.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur.

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

4.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur.

5.Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Karur. 6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.

Copy to:

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

23.12.2021 MGJ(31.03.2022) 11P 9C 11/11