Murali2.Sathish v. State

1.Murali2.Sathish.. Appellants/A-2 & A-3 in CA 92/2006Indira @ Victoria.. Appellant/A-6 in CA 165/2006vsState rep. By:Deputy Superintendent of PoliceCrime Branch CIDOrganised Crime UnitChengai East, Chennai 600 002.(Crime No.521/2003).. Respondent/ Complainant in all appealsCriminal appeals preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional SessionsJudge, Chennai at Poonamallee, made in S.C.No.311 of 2004 dated8.12.2005.For Appellants: Mr.K.Kannan in CA 39/2006 Mr.T.K.Sampath in CA 47/2006 Mr.S.Doraisami in CA 85/2006 Mr.R.Sankarasubbu in CA 92/2006 Mr.V.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Mahendran in CA 165/2006For Respondent: Mr.N.R.Elangoin all Crl.Appeals Additional PublicProsecutorCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)All these criminal appeals namely C.A.Nos.39, 47, 85, 92 and 165of 2006 concentrate in challenging a judgment of the AdditionalSessions Division, Chennai at Poonamallee, in S.C.No.311 of 2004whereby the appellants, six in number, stood charged, tried and found https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ guilty as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESFINDINGPUNISHMENTA-1 to A-6120(B) IPCDeletedA-2 to A-5A-1 & A-6364 IPC120 (B) r/w 364IPCGuilty5 years RI witha fine ofRs.2000/- anddefault sentenceA-2 to A-4A-1, A-5 & A-6302 IPC120 (B) r/w 302IPCGuiltyLifeimprisonmentwith a fine ofRs.2000/- anddefault sentenceA-1 to A-5A-6201 IPC120 (B) r/w 201IPCGuilty5 years RI witha fine ofRs.2000/- anddefault sentence2.Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals can bestated thus:(a) P.W.2 the eldest sister of the deceased Prasad Sebastin, andP.W.1, the husband of P.W.2, were residing at Madras. P.W.1 wasemployed in the Government Secretariat. The deceased PrasadSebastin, the brother of P.W.2, was a native of Punalur in the Stateof Kerala. He was an active member of CPI(M) and was also theOpposition Leader of Punalur Municipality. Originally, he was aresident of Madras. He worked at Britania Biscuit Company at Madraswhen he was staying with his father Mr.Rozario, an Ayurvedic Doctor.(b) On 25.5.2003, Sebastin came to Madurai in a Jeep of RuralCooperative Agricultural Development Bank of which he was thePresident during that time. Then he boarded a train to Chennai. Onthe morning of 26.5.2003, he went to the house of P.W.2 at DoorNo.7/7, Peters Colony, had breakfast and went outside to see aFinancier, who advanced moneys to one Navasath to purchase a motorvehicle. He did not return that day, but phoned to P.W.2 that hewould stay in his friend's house. The next morning that was on27.5.2003, he came to the house of P.W.2. After breakfast, he wentoutside telling that he was to meet a Financier, but on the night of27.5.2003, he did not return. Since he did not return to Punalur asper the original plan on 29.5.2003, and there was no report from himand also he did not return for a few days, P.W.2 spoke to her motherat Punalur. Her mother replied that he did not come to Punalur also.Hence P.W.1 approached D2 Anna Salai Police Station and gave Ex.P1,the report. (c) P.W.60, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to therespondent police station, on the strength of Ex.P1, the report,registered a case in Crime No.521/2003 under the caption 'manmissing'. The printed FIR in that regard is marked as Ex.P96. ThenP.W.60 took up investigation and proceeded to the spot. He enquiredboth P.W.1 and P.W.2 and recorded their statements. He noted theCaller I.D. Phone used by P.W.1, and further noticed that PrasadSebastin has contacted P.W.2 on 26.5.2003 from phone No.24510087 andon 27.5.2003 from phone No.24512645. He called police Photographer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.3, and took M.O.2 series in respect of those numbers as found inthe Caller I.D. The Caller I.D. Phone is marked as M.O.1., while theseries of the photographs are marked as M.O.2. P.W.60 deputed policepersonnel to find out these numbers as found in the Caller ID. Thenhe examined P.W.5 Bharath, Susil, the Financier at T.Nagar andJayachandran, P.W.24, a close friend of the deceased, and recordedtheir statements. (d) When the friends of Sebastin came to know about his missing,they phoned to P.W.1 on the night of 30.5.2003. Thereafter, they metP.W.1 at Chennai. They also met Jayachandran. On 31.5.2003 at about10.30 A.M., one Titus, a friend of the deceased, contacted P.W.1 overphone and requested her to come to Kottivakkam with the policeofficials. He also further stated that Sebastin was suspected tohave been kept in a house secretly. P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.23 andalso P.W.60, the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the house atKottivakkam and found Jayachandran and friends of Sebastin. Afterseveral knockings, the door was opened by A-1 Anand. When enquired,he pleaded innocence about the deceased. He also stated that theowner of the house was to Tuticorin with his wife. But, Jayachandraninformed that the house belonged to one Indira, A-6. At that time, acourier tapal addressed to Indira Suresh Babu, sent by Suresh Babufrom Kerala was received. The tapal contained a cheque forRs.90,000/-. When P.W.60 questioned, A-1 did not give directanswers. Then, a suspicion arose on the conduct of A-1. Then P.W.60arranged for surveillance over the movements of A-1. Various stepswere taken to trace Prasad Sebastin by issuing notice and passing oninformation through VHF. (e) In the meanwhile, on a complaint given by one Suresh Kumar,an Advocate and the friend of Prasad Sebastin, a case in Crime No.240of 2003 was registered by P.W.59, the Sub Inspector of Police atPunalur, Kerala, on 1.6.2003, for man missing. After doing thepreliminary enquiry, he visited Chennai. He met P.Ws.1 and 2. Oncoming to know that a case was already registered by D2 Anna SalaiPolice Station, he went back to Kerala and filed the final reportbefore the Judicial Magistrate concerned.(f) Continuing with the investigation in Crime No.521/2003 of D2Anna Salai Police Station, P.W.60 enquired Prakas, the brother ofPrasad Sebastin and Gurudas on 1.6.2003, and recorded theirstatements. P.W.14, the STD Booth owner in Kottivakkam and A-6 werealso enquired, and their statements were recorded. On 3.6.2003, asearch was made in the Mortuary of Government Hospital. On 7.6.2003,P.W.60 enquired one Rajendran, the Special Branch Sub Inspector ofThiruvallur District, and came to know that a case has beenregistered in Thiruvelangadu Police Station, a few days ago in CrimeNo.163/2003 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the complaint givenby P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer, in Ex.P4 on 5.6.2003stating that a dead body of a male was found. (g) P.W.57, the Sub Inspector of Police, who took up theinvestigation in Crime No.163/2003 as found in Ex.P88 FIR, went tothe place of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P89, and alsoan observation mahazar, Ex.P6, in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8. ThenP.W.57 conducted inquest as found in the report, Ex.P90, and securedM.O.38, plastic bottle, found near the dead body under a cover ofmahazar, Ex.P5. Then the dead body was sent to the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital for the purpose of postmortem through P.W.11, the HeadConstable. P.W.9, the Photographer, took photographs in variousangles as found in M.Os.8 to 15, and also the negatives were markedas M.Os.39 to 46. At that time, the dead body was in a highlydecomposed stage. (h) P.W.51, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the GovernmentHospital, Tiruvallur, on the requisition made, conducted autopsy andgave his finding in Ex.P57. To a question raised by theInvestigating Officer, he gave the particulars as found in Exs.P58 toP63. Then, the dead body was also buried in Periyakuppam BurialGround. (i) P.W.60, who was continuing with the investigation, comparedthe photographs in M.Os.8 to 15 along with M.O.50, the photographs ofMr.Prasad Sebastin, and they were found to be materially tallying.Thereafter, P.W.60 came to know that it became evident that Sebastinwas kidnapped and was also done to death. (j) In the meanwhile, the investigation was taken up by P.W.61,the Inspector of Police, who enquired the witnesses on 7.6.2003 andrecorded their statements. In order to ascertain the cause of deathand to further ascertain the identity of the victim throughscientific methods, P.W.61 thought it fit to make a request forexhumation with the Tahsildlar. Accordingly, on 9.6.2003, atPeriyakuppam Burial Ground in the presence of P.W.10, the Tahsildar,P.W.47, the scientific assistant, P.W.54 Dr.Durairaj and in thepresence of police officials, the dead body of the male was exhumedfrom the earth. The brothers and friends of Prasad Sebastin afterseeing the corpus identified that it was that of Sebastin.Dr.Durairaj removed the head, M.O.59, and left femur, M.O.60, fromthe dead body, and they were properly packed and preserved by P.W.47,the expert from Forensic Science Laboratory. (k) P.W.61 enquired P.W.10, the Tahsildar, and other witnessesand recorded their statements. P.W.10, the Tahsildar, in herproceedings marked as Ex.P7, recorded the events happened during thecourse of exhumation.(l) On 12.6.2003, P.W.15 Shankar and P.W.19 Arumugam reported toP.W.61 Investigator, to have seen the person in the photograph shownto them. Their statements that at about 6.30 A.M. on 28.5.2003,three identifiable persons forcibly pushed another person into TATASumo Car bearing registration No.TN 02 D 4462 and kidnapped; that thesame car was also followed by another person in a Hero HondaMotorcycle; and that the motorcyclist collected a purse and papersfell on the floor and followed the four wheeler were recorded. (m) On enquiry from the City Traffic Police, P.W.61 came to knowthat the TATA Sumo Car belonged to one Gilbert living at No.3Adiyaman Street, Manavala Nagar. The Investigating Officerimmediately approached Gilbert and enquired him. He replied that hisbrother Sanjay Sudanthiranathan shown as A-5, was driving thevehicle, and it was Anand A-1 residing at Sevvaipet hired the car afew days ago to go to Chennai. When A-5 was enquired, he cameforward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same wasrecorded in the presence of Shankar and P.W.19 Arumugam. Theadmissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.P100.Pursuant to the confession made, the case was altered to Sections363, 302, 201 r/w 120(B) of IPC. The amended FIR Ex.P99 was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ despatched to the Judicial Magistrate concerned. Following theconfessional statement, TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN 02 D4462 was seized under Ex.P12 mahazar. Then A-5 took the Investigatorto the New Colony in Kottivakkam and identified A-2 who was arrestedthe very day. He came forward to give a confessional statementvoluntarily. The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses andthe admissible part is Ex.P101. Equally, A-4 was arrested on thevery day at about 8.00 P.M. A-3 was also arrested. He came forwardto give a confessional statement voluntarily. The admissible part isEx.P102. (n) The Investigator examined P.W.25, Selvakumar, a TrafficPolice Constable, who gave a statement that he saw the deceased andA-2 to A-5 in the TATA Sumo Van on the particular day. P.W.25identified the accused and the person who was kidnapped as PrasadSebastin on seeing the photograph. Then the Investigator went toThiruvanmiyur and Kottivakkam, and the scene of occurrence wasidentified to him by P.W.13 and one Manoharan. An observationmahazar and also a rough sketch were prepared. They are marked asExs.P8 and P9 respectively. The statements of P.Ws.19, 15, 25 and 13were recorded. (o) On the information by the other accused, A-1 was arrested atNorth Bazaar Railway Gate, Sevvaipet, at 7.00 A.M. in the presence ofP.W.30, Revenue Inspector, and one Sundaram. A-1 came forward togive a confessional statement. The same was recorded, and theadmissible part is Ex.P103. As per the statement, A-1 showed theroute of kidnapping and also the places where the personal belongingsof the deceased were thrown. On 18.6.2003, A-2 gave furtherconfessional statement. Likewise A-4 also gave further confessionalstatement. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P104. Likewise, thefurther confessional statements of A-3 and A-5 were also recorded.At Pattarai Perumpudur, A-2 produced M.O.58 knife, which was seizedunder Ex.P38, mahazar. A-4 produced M.O.6, ash coloured full sleeveshirt, from the hiding place on the roadside which was secured underEx.P39 mahazar. He also produced from a thorny bush on the roadsideat Thiruthani Road near Kanagavallipuram, a black coloured jeans pantand a pair of grey coloured socks which were marked as M.Os.5 and 7respectively. The accused were sent for judicial custody. Theproperties were sent to Court. (p) In view of the seriousness of the case, the investigationwas transferred to CB CID (Organised Crime Unit), Chennai EastDistrict, by the proceedings of the Director General of Police dated16.7.2003. (q) P.W.62, Sathyanarayan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,CB CID, was nominated for the purpose by virtue of proceedings of theDGP under Ex.P109. The records relating to Thiruvelangadu PoliceStation in Crime No.163 of 2003 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. were handedover to P.W.62. Then P.W.62 inspected the places where from PrasadSebastin was allegedly kidnapped and also where the dead body wasfound. He enquired all the witnesses. He collected informationabout A-1 to A-5. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Ex.P26is the attendance register of the Italian Restaurant in which A-4 wasallegedly working. A requisition was forwarded under Ex.P30 on10.10.2003, with reference to phone number 28593186, the telephone ofP.W.1's house. The same was provided by P.W.33, Divisional Engineer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ BSNL, under Ex.P31. The call details of 9444126413 and 9444118099for the months of May, June and July which belonged to A-4 and A-1respectively, were received under Ex.P32. Equally, the printout ofcall details for the months of May and June 2003 relating to9840054214 and 9840054216 were furnished by P.W.35, the AirtelOfficer, which is marked as Ex.P33. (r) Thereafter, the Investigator enquired the Doctors, ForensicExperts, Tahsildar and other witnesses and recorded their statements.On 20.8.2003, after appraisement of the evidence collected, theInvestigator strongly believed that A-6 Indira was also behind thecrime. He went to Kottivakkam and arrested her after informing thereasons for the arrest. She was brought to CB CID Office and wasinterrogated. Then the Investigator went to Kerala and enquiredP.W.59, Abdul Razeed, the Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur, andrecorded his statement. A requisition was placed before the learnedChief Metropolitan Magistrate for recording the statements ofwitnesses under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, P.W.53, VijayaKanth, Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statements of the witnessesas found in Exs.P76 and P77. On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessarycharges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, theprosecution examined 62 witnesses and also relied on 111 exhibits and62 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. asto the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false. On the sideof the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and 9 documentswere marked. Apart from that, two Court documents were marked asExs.C1 and C2. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and tookthe view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonabledoubt and hence found the appellants guilty and awarded punishment asreferred to above. Hence these appeals at the instance of theappellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-1, the learned Counselwould submit that the entire case rested upon the theory ofconspiracy hatched up by A-1 and A-6; but, there is no evidence as tothe meeting of A-1 along with the other accused on the previous nightnamely 27.5.2003 to hatch up a plan to do away with the deceased;that the only witness examined by the prosecution that he has seen A-1 with A-6 was P.W.15; that the evidence of P.W.15 could not berelied for the reasons that he has given different addresses; that hehas categorically admitted that he was living at Peters Colony,Royapettah, 30 kilometers away from Kottivakkam; that the theatrewhere he is claimed to have employed is situated about 15 kilometersfrom the house of A-6 situated at Kottivakkam; that the Investigatorhas not even cared to examine the theatre owner where P.W.15 wasemployed during the relevant time; that he was actually involved in acase registered by D2 Anna Salai Police Station, and he has alsoclaimed that he was already known to the Sub Inspector of Police ofthat particular police station; that his statement was recorded aftera period of two months and that too, after the CB CID took up the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case; and that all would go to show that his evidence has got to berejected. 5.Added further the learned Counsel that in respect ofconspiracy that was alleged to have been hatched up between A-1 to A-4, the witnesses examined were P.Ws.17 and 18; that P.W.17 hascategorically admitted that he was examined by the CB CID 10 daysafter the occurrence; but, his statement was recorded on 21.7.2003 byP.W.62 under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.; that the statement also reached theCourt on 21.11.2003, and thus it would be quite clear that he was awitness introduced later in order to speak to the factum ofconspiracy; that equally, the very reading of the evidence of P.W.18would clearly indicate that he could not have seen any one of theaccused as claimed by him; that his statement was recorded on17.6.2003, by P.W.61; but it has reached the Court on 8.7.2003; thatthe very reading of the entire evidence would clearly indicate thatan incident of conspiracy as narrated by P.W.18 could not havehappened at all, and thus the evidence of P.Ws.17 and 18 who wereexamined in order to prove conspiracy should have been rejected. 6.Added further the learned Counsel that the prosecution inorder to prove the offence of kidnapping, had relied on the evidenceof P.W.25, a traffic constable; that he has deposed that he was onduty at about 0730 hours at Ashok Pillar where the TATA Sumo Car,M.O.47, came in such a speed, and on seeing the vehicle crossing theline, he stopped the Car and found inside the deceased in the backseat, and on both sides A-2 to A-4 were sitting, and A-5 was found inthe Driver's seat, and he found blood oozing on the ear of thedeceased, and when he questioned, they replied that it was due to theclosing of the door; that if really P.W.25 had seen the same asclaimed by him, the deceased who was sitting on the back seat onseeing him, would have raised his voice or sought his help, but didnot do so; that it is also improbable that even after seeing theblood oozing from the ear of the deceased, P.W.25 being a PoliceConstable, would not have allowed them to go free; and that theconduct of P.W.25 at that time would be indicative of the fact thathe was actually a witness introduced by the police agency in order tostrengthen its case of kidnapping. 7.The learned Counsel would further add that equally, P.W.26 wasalso a witness introduced by the prosecution; that according toP.W.26, he was sitting in front of a tea stall near Manavur RailwayStation along with his friend, and at that time, a Car was stoppednearby, and it was A-5 who asked a tumbler of water, and his (P.W.26)friend Panneerselvam got water from the shop and handed over to him,and he took the water and handed over to A-5, and A-5 in turn handedover to the deceased, and at that time, A-1 came in a two-wheeler andshouted at A-5 to start the Car, and accordingly the Car was started,and the tumbler was thrown outside. Making comments over thisevidence, the learned Counsel would contend that the statement ofP.W.26 was recorded only on 27.7.2003 by P.W.62, the InvestigatingOfficer, after CB CID had taken up investigation; that it is highlydoubtful once the accused had taken a decision to finish him off,whether they would have stopped the Car and asked for a cup of water https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in a tea stall; that if really it has taken place, the deceased whowas sitting in the Car would have naturally asked for a help fromP.W.26 and that too, when 25 persons are sitting in the tea stall,but not done so; and that all would go to show that P.W.26 was aplanted witness. 8.The learned Counsel would further add that there was aspecific charge that it was A-2 to A-4 who stabbed the deceased todeath; that the postmortem Doctor has given his opinion in Exs.P57and P58, certificate and final opinion respectively, that in view ofthe advanced decomposition, no definite opinion could be givenregarding the cause of death; that according to the prosecution, thebody was originally thrown and after four days, it was found by P.W.6and when it was brought to the notice of Thiruvalangadu police, acase came to be registered; that following the inquest, the dead bodywas subjected to postmortem by P.W.51, the Doctor, and thus the causeof death was not known; and that under the circumstances, theprosecution was unable to show that either A-2 to A-4 stabbed him oras a result of the injuries caused by stabbing, he died. 9.The learned Counsel would further add that no specificquestion was also put to A-2 to A-4 at the time when they werequestioned by the trial Court under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. that pursuantto the conspiracy, A-2 to A-4 caused injuries by stabbing, and as aresult, the deceased died, and thus the prosecution has miserablyfailed either to prove the conspiracy or the nexus between A-1 and A-6 or the part played by A-2 to A-5, and hence A-1 is entitled foracquittal.10.The learned Counsel arguing for A-2 and A-3 would submit thatinsofar as P.Ws.17 and 18, they have been marched to speak about thealleged conspiracy that had taken place between A-2 to A-4 during thenight hours of 27.5.2003; that the very reading of the evidence asput forth before the trial Court would clearly indicate that such anincident could not have taken place at all; that one claimed to be acoconut vendor who was sleeping on the roadside and the other claimedto be a cook who was walking on the roadside; and that according tothem, A-2 to A-4 actually parked their Car, and they were talking toeach other and conspired to do away with the deceased, and it wasoverheard by them which could not be believed. 11.Added further the learned Counsel that the statements ofthese witnesses were recorded long afterwards; that apart from that,as far as P.W.19 was concerned, he has categorically spoken to thefact that he went to the police station, and he was actually employedby the police for two purposes one for arrest, confession andrecovery and the other for statement as if he has seen the offence ofkidnapping; that the evidence of P.W.19 would clearly show that on12.6.2003, he did not go for work, and A-2 to A-4 were arrested atabout 6.00 A.M. on 12.6.2003, and till 3.00 P.M. on that day, he wasactually staying in his house, and afterwards he went to the policestation, and he was enquired, and thereafter, he gave the statement;and that his statement recorded by the police under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.,would clearly indicate that it was an after thought in order to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ strengthen the prosecution case. 12.The learned Counsel commenting upon the evidence of P.W.25, aPolice Constable, would submit that he claimed that he was actuallyat the traffic, and he was on duty at about 7.30 A.M. on 28.5.2003,and at that time, the Car actually crossed the line, and hence thevehicle was stopped, and he happened to see all the accused persons;that according to his evidence, he was actually at the spot from 5.00A.M. itself; and that the Diary produced by him would clearlyindicate that he was actually posted for duty at 7.30 A.M.; but theevidence that he happened to be by 5.00 A.M. would indicate that itwas a falsity. 13.Added further the learned Counsel that there are no documentsto show that at that time P.W.25 was available at the spot, asclaimed by him; that it is quite unnatural for a police constable tokeep quiet, when he found the persons in a drunken mood and alsoblood oozing from the ear of the deceased, and he has not bookedanybody or has not taken them; that it is further to be pointed outthat his statement was recorded only on 12.6.2003; that if reallysuch a matter came to his notice, one would expect him to immediatelygo to the police station and inform the same, but not done so; thatas far as the evidence of P.W.26 was concerned, he was actuallysitting in front of a tea stall, and at that time, the Car wasactually stopped, and the Driver A-5 called for a cup of water, andone Panneerselvam sitting by his side got water, and he got waterfrom Pannerselvam and handed over to A-5; that even from hisevidence, it would be quite clear that the Car was stopped for a fewminutes within which he could not have noticed what he has statednow; and that in a case like this, identification parade should havebeen conducted but not done so. The learned Counsel would furtheradd that the statement of this witness was recorded only on 29.7.2003and that too after the investigation was taken up by P.W.62, theInvestigating Officer, attached to CB CID, but not before; that thesame itself would indicate that he was a planted witness, and hencehis evidence is liable to be rejected and if rejected, theprosecution had no further evidence to offer, and hence A-2 and A-3are entitled for acquittal.14.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-4, the learned Counselwould submit that there is no evidence forthcoming from theprosecution that prior to 28.5.2003, the date of occurrence, A-1 toA-4 were known to each other or they were found in the company ofeach other. Insofar as P.Ws.17, 18, 19, 25 and 26, the learnedCounsel adopted the criticisms levelled by the other Counsel asstated above which are equally applicable to these witnesses. 15.The learned Counsel made much reliance on the evidence ofP.W.31, who was the Watchman of a Restaurant where A-4 was employedduring the relevant time. Pointing to Ex.P26, the attendanceregister, wherein Exs.P27 and P28, the entries, are found, thelearned Counsel would submit that on the morning hours of 28.5.2003,A-4 has attended his work and has signed the register; that P.W.31has categorically admitted at the time of the cross-examination that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A-4 has attended his work, and at that time, the work has actuallycommenced by 9.30 A.M.; that the occurrence has taken place withinthe jurisdiction of Tiruvalangadu Police Station situated about 60 or70 kilometers away, and that too at about 8.30 A.M.; that if to beso, it would be humanly impossible for a person to come back for hiswork; that under the circumstances, the plea of alibi put forth bythe defence, should have been accepted by the trial Court; that inthe instant case, identification parade was a must, but notconducted, and hence A-4 is entitled for acquittal.16.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-5, the learned Counselwould submit that A-5 was called to be the Driver of M.O.47, TATASumo Car, which belonged to the brother of A-5; that the owner of thecar was not examined; that any records in that regard were notproduced; that how long A-5 was the driver of the Car was not madeknown; that as far as the presence of A-5 was concerned, P.W.17 hasbeen examined; that according to him, he saw only for a few seconds;that in such a situation, identification parade was a must; thatapart from that, when a question was raised by the trial Courtwhether it was dark, he stated that he was able to see, but throughthe headlight and that too for a few seconds; and that such evidencecould not be relied upon at all. 17.Added further the learned Counsel that P.Ws.18 and 19 havenot spoken about A-5; that as far as P.W.25 was concerned, hisstatement was recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., after two months; thatthe fact that a police personnel who was actually on duty came toknow such an incident and the statement was recorded after two monthswould go to show that it was only a cooked up evidence; that allwould go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to proveits case, and hence A-5 is entitled for acquittal in the hands ofthis Court.18.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/A-6 inC.A.No.165 of 2006, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath wouldsubmit that the prosecution came forward with the specific allegationthat A-6 and the deceased Sebastin fell in love with each other, butthey could not marry in view of the objections raised by the familymembers, and Sebastin got married, and equally A-6 married SureshBabu and was living at Madras during the relevant time, and Sebastinwho was residing at Punalur, Kerala State, frequently visited Madrasin order to meet her, and he also stayed over in her house and hadsexual pleasure, and A-6 who developed intimacy with A-1, the driver-cum-paramour, wanted to get rid of the deceased, and according to herplan, a conspiracy was hatched up, and in execution of thatconspiracy, she identified the deceased to A-1 on the morning hoursof 28.5.2003, and following the same, A-2 to A-4 kidnapped him in aTATA Sumo Car driven by A-5 and A-1 also followed in a two wheeler,and Sebastin was done to death, and his dead body was thrown. 19.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that thoughthe prosecution has examined the family members, they have not spokenanything either about the love affair between the deceased and A-6,or they could not marry, or he developed illicit intimacy with A-6 at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai at any point of time; that it was not even evidence either toshow that A-1 was either the Driver or the Manager of A-6 at anypoint of time; that the prosecution examined P.W.16, a neighbour ofA-6, and also P.W.15 to speak to the factum of the company of thedeceased with A-6 at about 5.00 or 5.30 A.M. on 28.5.2003; that thevery reading of the evidence of P.W.16, the neighbour, would clearlyindicate that he could speak that about 10 days prior to theoccurrence, he saw a fair male person aged 40 or 45 in the garden ofA-6, and at that time, A-6 was also present along with him; but hecould not identify whether the person found in the photograph,M.O.50, was the person found in the company of A-6; and that underthe circumstances, his evidence was of no use to the prosecution.20.It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel thatequally, the evidence of P.W.15 should not have been believed by thetrial Court; that as per his evidence, on 28.5.2003 at about 5.00A.M., he was pasting a poster on a wall nearby the house of A-6, andat that time, he found both A-6 and the deceased, and thereafter, thebeard man was walking fast, and at that time, A-6 pointing to thedeceased told A-1 to finish him off, and immediately A-1 made a phonecall, and three persons came in a TATA Sumo Car, and they were A-2 toA-4, and the deceased was pushed inside the Car, and when the Car wasstarted, A-1 also followed in a two wheeler; that P.W.15 hascategorically stated that he was actually residing at Peters Colony,Royapettah, which is situated about 25 to 30 kilometers fromKottivakkam where the house of A-6 is situated; that he hascategorically admitted that he was employed for the purpose ofpasting the posters relating to Aravind Theatre which is situatedabout 15 kilometers from Kottivakkam; that he gave differentaddresses at different stages; that even the Court summons could notbe served in the address which was claimed by him as Peters Colony;that he has further admitted that Kottaisamy, the Sub Inspector ofPolice, P.W.60, attached to D2 Anna Salai Police Station, was knownto him; that actually a case was registered by the said policeagainst him on the previous occasion; that under the circumstances,it is highly doubtful whether he went to the nearby house of A-6 atKottivakkam; that it is further admitted by him that on 28.5.2003, afilm by name Dham was screened at Aravind Theatre; but he actuallypasted the poster for another film; and that it is also highlydoubtful whether the person who belonged to Peters Colony atRoyapettah and who was employed at Aravind Theatre situated about 15kilometers away from Kottivakkam, could be employed for pasting theposters as claimed by him. 21.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that according toP.W.15, he was enquired by the police a week or 10 days after28.5.2003; that P.W.15 voluntarily came forward to give a statement,and the same was recorded on 21.7.2003; that apart from the above,the statement of P.W.15 reached the Court on 25.11.2003; that it ispertinent to point out that the statement of P.W.15 was recorded byP.W.62 only after the case was taken up by the CB CID; and that allwould go to show that his evidence was a created one in order toimplicate A-6 to the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the witnessP.W.15 has categorically admitted that he has given evidence inS.C.No.423/2004; that he has gone to the extent of stating that hissignatures were obtained by the Court and the remaining part wasfilled thereafter; and that it is to be noted that it was theevidence of P.W.15 recorded by the Court in S.C.No.423/2004. 23.The learned Senior Counsel would further add that before thetrial Court, the prosecution had relied on M.O.1, Caller ID Phone,and M.O.2, photographs, showing the entry to prove that on 26.5.2003,a call was received from a public booth and the same was made by thedeceased to P.W.2 informing that he was staying in a friend's houseand that he would come in the next morning; that P.W.14, the STDBooth owner, was examined; that equally on 27.5.2003, a call wasreceived by P.W.2 from the cell phone which belonged to the husbandof A-6 and the same was used by A-6 during the relevant dates; thatthese pieces of evidence should have been rejected by theprosecution; that the prosecution has claimed that two cell phonenumbers 9840054214 and 9840054216 were actually owned by the husbandof A-6 and those numbers were recorded in the Caller ID Phoneattached to the landline of P.W.2; that P.W.35, the official from theBSNL, has categorically deposed that no evidence was produced to showthat Suresh Babu, the husband of A-6, was the owner of those two cellphone numbers; that under such circumstances, even assuming thesenumbers were actually recorded in the Caller ID Phone of P.W.2, itcould not convey that it was used by A-6; and that equally, theInvestigator claimed that M.O.1 was the Caller ID Phone, and M.O.2series was the photographs taken, and both these material objectswere taken on 30.5.2003. 24.The learned Senior Counsel would further add that the firstcall was made on 26.5.2003 night hours and the second call was madeon 27.5.2003; that both the days were Monday and Tuesdayrespectively; that when these photographs were taken, the numbers ofthe cell phones which were alleged to be used by A-6 were shown, butthe day was shown in both the photographs taken for both the days26.5.2003 and 27.5.2003, as Friday; that had it been true that thesenumbers were actually recorded on 26.5.2003 and 27.5.2003, the Mondayand Tuesday should have been shown; that on the contrary, it showedonly Friday, and thus it would be quite clear that these numbers wereactually recorded on Friday and photographs were taken; and that thispiece of evidence should be of no worth and should have been rejectedby the trial Court. 25.The learned Counsel would further submit that another pieceof evidence relied on by the prosecution was that of P.W.24 whoclaimed that he was staying at Padi and he was a good friend of thedeceased, and A-6 used to write letters to the deceased which wereaddressed to P.W.24, and he used to collect those letters and deliverto the deceased; that he has also deposed that in the year 2002, thedeceased came to Chennai and went to the house of A-6 where she wasresiding with her husband, and it was the deceased who introducedP.W.24 to the husband of A-6 and also A-6 at that time; that theevidence of P.W.24 before the trial Court cannot be attached with any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidentiary value for the simple reason that P.Ws.60 and 62, both theInvestigating Officers have categorically admitted that thesestatements made before the Court were not made before them, and hencethey were to be rejected. 26.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that when anapplication for anticipatory bail was moved by A-6 before the Courtof Session in Cr.M.P.No.5299/2003 on 17.6.2003, P.W.61 has filed acounter stating that no case was registered against A-6; that thiswould also clearly indicate that they had no suspicion against A-6 atall; that she has been added in the case as an afterthought; that inthe instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove theconspiracy theory or produce any evidence connecting A-6 with thedeceased or the crime in question; that the trial Court has taken anerroneous view and hence A-6 is entitled for acquittal.27.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onall the above contentions and considered the elaborate deliberationsmade on either side and also made a thorough scrutiny of thedocuments available.28.As could be seen from the available evidence, the dead bodyof Prasad Sebastin was found at Thiruvalangadu. It was actuallynoticed by P.W.6. Then he brought the same to the notice ofThiruvalangadu Police Station, and a case was registered in CrimeNo.163 of 2003 by P.W.57, the Sub Inspector of Police. Following theinquest made, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.51,the Doctor, and he has also given his opinion that in view of theadvanced decomposition, cause of death could not be fixed. Once theprosecution came forward with a case that the death has actuallyoccurred due to the homicidal violence, nowhere at any point of time,any one of the appellants questioned this fact before the trialCourt. Thus there cannot be any impediment, in the opinion of theCourt, to record that Prasad Sebastin died out of homicidal violence.29.Apart from the above, in order to prove that the dead bodywas that of Prasad Sebastin, the prosecution had three pieces ofevidence, firstly M.O.10, photograph of the dead body of Sebastinwhich was shown to the relatives, and they have also identified asthat of Sebastin. Secondly, the Chemical Examiner has been examinedas P.W.55 through whom the reports Ex.P83 and P84 have been filed.As a result of the superimposition test, it would also be pointing tothe fact that the dead body was that of Sebastin. Thirdly, the DNAtest was conducted, and the report has also been filed as Ex.P85through P.W.56, Scientific Assistant. Apart from all the above,nowhere the appellants have questioned that the dead body in respectof which inquest or postmortem or exhumation was made, was that ofPrasad Sebastin at any point of time. Hence it could also berecorded so.30.As could be seen above, the case of the prosecution in shortis that the deceased and A-6 originally belonged to Punalur, KeralaState; that they fell in love with each other, but could not marry,and thereafter each of them contracted marriage separately; that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ during the relevant time, A-6 was living in Madras with her husbandat Kottivakkam, while the deceased was at Kerala; that he madefrequent visits over her and had shared the sexual pleasure; thatwhile the matter stood thus, she employed A-1 as a driver and shedeveloped intimacy with him; that thereafter, he was made as aManager; that she felt the presence of the deceased as a hurdle forthe continuance of the company of A-1, and then she decided to finishhim off, as a result of which a conspiracy was hatched up by A-6 withA-1; that A-2 to A-4 were hired for the purpose of causing the deathof the deceased for which they used M.O.47, TATA Sumo Car, which wasdriven by A-5, and thus the crime has taken place.31.As far as the first part of the case that there was aconspiracy which was hatched up was concerned, this Court on scrutinyof the evidence has to come to the irresistible conclusion that theprosecution has not proved its case. Needless to say that in a givencase when the prosecution has come forward with the story ofconspiracy against all the accused, direct evidence must beavailable. It is also settled proposition of law that conspiracycould be inferred from the circumstances proved. But, in the instantcase, the prosecution has miserably failed to place either the directevidence or the circumstances from which conspiracy could beinferred. The prosecution in order to prove the conspiracy betweenA-1 and A-6 and also along with A-2 to A-4, rested its case on theevidence of P.Ws.15, 17 and 18. The very reading of the evidence ofP.Ws.17 and 18 would clearly indicate that it cannot but be a cookedup one or introduced for the purpose of making an attempt to provethe conspiracy theory. P.W.17 has categorically admitted that he wasactually a coconut vendor, and his place of vending was somewhereelse; but he was sleeping in another place; that on that day he wokeup at 11.00 P.M., when he found a TATA Sumo Car just parked nearby,and he also found all the accused speaking about the causing of deathof a person. At the time of his cross-examination, it could be foundthat the evidence of the witness thoroughly became shaky. 32.As far as P.W.18 was concerned, equally he would state thathe was a cook going on his way; that he found all of them in a Car;that they were talking to each other; and that he heard the words "Wewould finish him off within the night". Apart from this, thestatement of this witness was recorded long after the crime inquestion. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out thatas far as P.Ws.17 and 18 were concerned, on the face of theirtestimony, it has got to be rejected. 33.As far as P.W.15 is concerned, he would claim that he wasactually employed in Aravind Theatre situated about 15 kilometersaway from Kottivakkam; that during the relevant time, he was pastingthe posters for that theatre; that he was employed for that purpose;that on that day namely 28.5.2003 at about 0530 hours, he went toKottivakkam for the purpose of pasting the poster; that he wentnearby the house of A-6; that at that time, he found both A-6 and thedeceased, and the deceased was about to start; that and at that time,A-1 came near A-6, and A-6 identified him to A-1, and from thatplace, A-1 followed him. Now at this juncture, it is pertinent to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ point out that the statement recorded from P.W.15 in this regardwould clearly indicate that he has given different versions, and bythis it cannot at any rate be inferred that there was any conspiracybetween A-1 and A-6. The statement of this witness was recorded byP.W.62 after the investigation was taken up by the CB CID from theregular police. All would go to show that as far as conspiracy partwas concerned, his evidence cannot be relied for any purpose, andthus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there wasconspiracy between A-1 and A-6 and consequent upon the same, A-2 toA-4 conspired, and thus the occurrence has taken place. Therefore,the case of the prosecution as to the conspiracy part is liable to berejected, and accordingly rejected.34.Coming to the question of kidnapping of Sebastin and alsocausing his death, the prosecution has relied upon the followingevidence. The first witness is P.W.16, the neighbour of A-6. Fromhis evidence it could be seen that he could not identify whether thedeceased was the person found in the company of A-6 on the day evenafter looking into the photograph, and thus his evidence remainedunacceptable. 35.Secondly, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.15.As could be seen from his evidence, he would claim that he wasemployed by Aravind Theatre which is situated at about 15 kilometersaway from Kottivakkam; that he came to the place nearby the house ofA-6 at about 5.30 A.M. on the date of occurrence namely 28.5.2003,and saw both A-6 and also the deceased; that when the deceased washastily proceeding from the house, A-1 came near A-6, and A-6pointing to him, asked A-1 to finish him off; that A-1 made a phonecall pursuant to which A-2 to A-4 came in a TATA Sumo Car which wasdriven by A-5; that A-2 to A-4 pushed the deceased inside the Car;that at that time, A-1 took a purse like thing which fell from thedeceased, and he also followed them in a two wheeler. As far as thispart of the evidence is concerned, when the same is looked into, itis found to be believable at the first sight. When a carefulscrutiny of the evidence of this witness is made, the same, in theconsidered opinion of the Court, cannot be believed for the followingreasons. So far as the address is concerned, he has given differentversions, and he also claimed to live in Peters Colony at Royapettahwithin the jurisdiction of the respondent police namely D2 Anna SalaiPolice Station. That apart, he was also involved in a particularcriminal case, and he was acquainted to P.W.60, the Sub Inspector ofPolice, of the respondent police station. When he was examined inCourt, he has deposed that he was interrogated by the police officerwithin a week or 10 days from the time of occurrence; but, hisstatement was recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. only on 21.7.2003 byP.W.62. That would mean that after the case actually taken up forinvestigation by the CB CID, his statement has been recorded. It ishighly improbable that a person who was employed for the purpose ofpasting the poster in a theatre situated 15 kilometers away fromKottivakkam, has gone to the place to do the work. Addedcircumstance is that if it is true that he has seen such an incident,and he had gone to take water from A-6, naturally one would expecthim to enquire how such a thing was happening, but he has not done https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ so, and till he was examined by the police, he has not informed toany one at all. Thus the evidence of P.W.15 is doubtful and cannotbe believed. 36.The next piece of evidence much relied on by the prosecutionwas that of P.W.19, who was a painter by profession. He has claimedthat he was also nearby the place, and he found A-2 to A-4 taking thedeceased in a Car during the relevant time. His statement was alsorecorded on 12.6.2003. He has categorically deposed that on12.6.2003, he was present at the time when A-2 to A-4 were arrestedon the morning hours at about 6.00 A.M. and thereafter they gave theconfessional statements, and then he left for home. While he wascross-examined, he has stated that he did not go for work on12.6.2003, and he took rest till 3.00 P.M., and thereafter, he wentto the police station. That would mean that the statement nowproduced before the Court as if he has seen all the persons, has comeinto existence only after 3.00 P.M., and the same cannot but be anafterthought. It could also be seen that P.W.19 has been used for adual purpose one for the witness for arrest, confession and recoveryand the other for suiting the alleged facts as if he has seen theoffence of kidnapping. Apart from this, his statement has alsoreached the Court very belatedly. No explanation is forthcoming, andhence his evidence cannot be given any effect at all.37.The other piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution wasthe evidence of a Police Constable, P.W.25. According to him, he wason duty on 28.5.2003 near Ashok Pillar, and at that time, a TATA SumoCar, M.O.47, driven by A-5 came in a rash speed, and when the Carcrossed the line, he stopped the vehicle and found A-2 to A-5 sittingalong with the deceased inside. According to him, the deceased was abeard person, and blood was oozing from his ear at that time, and hewas also able to smell that they were all in drunken mood. Theevidence of P.W.25 and that too a Police Constable, ordinarily couldbe accepted. But, in the instant case, this Court is of the opinionthat his evidence cannot be accepted for the following reasons.Firstly, he has produced Exs.P18 and P19, Pocket Note Book andGeneral Diary respectively, from which it could be seen that he wasactually posted to duty at about 7.30 A.M. on that day. But, he hasgiven contra evidence stating that he was available there from 5.00A.M. onwards. To show that he was actually on duty from 5.00 A.M.onwards there is nothing available. Apart from that, when a policeconstable came to know that the persons inside the Car were indrunken mood and that too, blood was oozing from the ear of thedeceased, naturally he would have made an enquiry, brought them tothe police station and take necessary steps thereon in order toinitiate action, but he has failed to do so. Further in hisstatement though claimed to be recorded on 12.6.2003, he has clearlystated that he was summoned by the police, and thereafter, he wentthere and gave such a statement. Under the circumstances, it is amatter of surprise to note that the police constable who is expectedto take immediate action has not taken, and that too his statementwas recorded on 12.6.2003, and it also reached the Court in the monthof July 2003. Apart from that, no explanation is tendered how hehappened to be there at that time. Hence the evidence of P.W.25 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ loses its significance. 38.Now, the last witness in this regard is P.W.26. According tohim, he was actually sitting in front of a tea shop along with hisfriend Panneerselvam, and the car was stopped, and A-5 asked for acup of water, and Panneerselvam got water from the shop and handedover to him, and it was he who handed over the water to A-5, and atthat time, half of the window of the car was kept open, and he wasable to see the persons inside, and at that time, A-1 came in a twowheeler and shouted at A-5, and immediately the Car was stated, andA-1 has also followed them. His statement was actually recorded bythe Investigator after it was taken up by the CB CID. Further it hasalso reached the Court in the month of November 2003. In a givensituation like this, when a person is being kidnapped for the purposeof common object of murdering him, it is quite unnatural andunbelievable that the car was stopped for a cup of water. At thisjuncture, a comment was also made that there were 25 persons insidethe tea stall, and the deceased would have asked for help. But, fromthe very beginning when A-2 to A-4 pushed the deceased inside thecar at the instigation of A-1 and when they were actually noticed byP.Ws.19, 25 and 26 all along the period and when the accused wereactually travelling in the car, at no point of time he raised hisvoice or asked for rescue and nothing had happened, and no onewitness witnessing such a situation, has questioned the same. 39.Needless to say, the identification parade in every case isnot a must. Identification is actually not a substantive piece ofevidence, and it is only corroborative piece of evidence.Identifying the accused in Court is a substantive piece of evidence.But, the Court before accepting the contention put forth by theprosecution that identification parade is not necessary in a givencase, must see whether the witnesses who are identifying the accusedin Court, could have seen them for a sufficient time and thecircumstances would have made such a dent in their memory and so thatthey could identify them clearly. Now at this juncture, it is to bepointed out that the evidence of P.W.18 for the reasons stated supra,has got to be brushed aside. The witnesses could have seen only fora few minutes. If to be so, when there are five persons inside thecar, these persons could not have seen or remembered so. It is alsoto be considered that if they had thought that it was a crime beingcommitted, immediately they would have gone to the next step of atleast helping the deceased or bringing the matter to the notice ofanybody. But, they have neither gone to the police station nor takenany steps, and in particular, P.W.25, a police constable. Addedfurther in the instant case, the non-conduct of the identificationparade, in the considered opinion of the Court, was fatal, and underthe circumstances it cannot be stated that the prosecution has provedthe case of kidnapping made by A-2 to A-5. The learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor brought to the notice of the Court that in a givencase where the prosecution is able to show that the accused haveactually abducted or kidnapped the deceased and if they could notcome with the explanation how death has happened, it has got to beinferred that they are the murderers. In the instant case, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that on the basis of the evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ placed before the trial Court and scrutinized by this Court, it wouldbe highly unsafe to hold that A-2 to A-5 could have actuallykidnapped him. 40.Apart from the above, even P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken tothe fact that A-6 and the deceased had continued their intimacyduring the relevant point of time. In the absence of any evidence toindicate that either he stayed over there, or had got illicitintimacy, it can be well stated that there is no evidence that hestayed in the house of A-6 on the night of 27.5.2003.41.As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for theappellants, at the time of questioning of the accused under Sec.313Cr.P.C. by the trial Court, no question was put to them that pursuantto the conspiracy, A-2 to A-5 have kidnapped the deceased and causedhis death by stabbing. It remains to be stated that questioningunder Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality, and it should beexercised in accordance with law. The Apex Court has held in adecision reported in 2009(4) SUPREME 429 (SHAIKH MAQSOOD V. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA) that a conviction based on the accused's failure toexplain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. Thisdecision is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Inthe absence of faithful observance of the provisions of Sec.313Cr.P.C., it would be highly unsafe to base a conviction. 42.Therefore, in the absence of any proof as to the conspiracypart either or from the evidence available pointing that A-1 and A-6had any conspiracy or in furtherance of the same, A-2 to A-4 hadconspired with A-1 or on the day, on the instigation of A-1, A-2 toA-4 have actually kidnapped the deceased from the place and causedthe death, it cannot be inferred that they have caused the death. Itis true that the dead body was found. It is also proved that thecause of death could not be fixed, but it is not challenged. Eventhen, the prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubtthat the appellants/accused were actually involved in the commissionof the crime. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has taken anerroneous view, which has got to be made undone by upsetting thejudgment of the trial Court.43.Accordingly, all these criminal appeals are allowed settingaside the judgment of the trial Court. The appellants are acquittedof all the charges levelled against them. The fine amount if anypaid by them, will be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed bythem shall stand terminated.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai.2.-do- thro' The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Chennai.3.The Addl. Sessions Judge, Poonamallee.4.-do- thro' the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.5.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Salem.6.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tiruchi.7.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Sivagangai.8.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Vellore.9.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tirunelveli.10.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Pudukkottai.11.The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore.12.The Superintendent, Spl. Prison for Women, Vellore.13.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Crime Branch CID, Organised Crime Unit, Chengai East, Chennai-2.14.The Public Prosecutor,High Court,Chennai-104.+1cc to Mr.L.Mahendran, Advocate Sr 31599+1ccc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate Sr 31209+1cc to Mr.T.K.Sampath, Advocate Sr 31678GV(CO)km/27.7.CA Nos.39, 47, 85, 92and 165 of 2006