Mohan @ Mohan Reddy.. v. The State by the Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet Police Station, TiruttaniTaluk, Tiruvallur Dist.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2008CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHICriminal Appeal No.739 of 2007Mohan @ Mohan Reddy.. Appellant/Accused-vs-The State by the Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet Police Station, TiruttaniTaluk, Tiruvallur Dist.(Cr. No.29 of 2001)... Respondent/Complainant Appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional DistrictJudge, Fast Track Court No.V, Tiruvallur made in S.C.No.119 of 2004dated 4.11.2004. For Appellant: Mr.P.KrishnanFor Respondent: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor.J U D G M E N T(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)The sole accused in Sessions Case No.117 of 2001 on the file ofAdditional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Tiruvallur, challengeshis conviction and sentence in this appeal.2. The appellant was charged, convicted and sentenced in the saidcase as given below:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ChargeConvictionSentenceOffence under Section 449IPC, for having trespassedinto the house of P.W.2 inorder to commit murder Found guilty3 years R.I. with fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default toundergo 3 months S.I.Offence under Section 302IPC (2 counts), for havingmurdered Ponniammal, wife ofthe accused and Kondiah,husband of P.W.2 by stabbingon various parts of theirbodyFound guilty Life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault to undergo 3months S.I., under twocountsOffence under Section 307IPC for having attempted tocause the death of Rajammal,P.W.2Found guilty7 years R.I. with fine ofRs.1,000/- in default toundergo 3 months S.I.3. For the sake of convenience, the deceased Ponniammal will bereferred to as D-1 and the deceased Kondiah will be referred as D-2 andthe appellant will be referred to as the accused.4. The case of the prosecution was built up on the basis of thestatement lodged by P.W.2 to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer,on 17.1.2001 at about 3.30 a.m., which was marked as Ex.P.1 in the case.Based on the complaint (Ex.P.1), a First Information Report (Ex.P8) wasregistered by the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.17) at about 5.00 a.m. on17.1.2001.5.1. The case of the prosecution as could be discerned from theevidence, both oral and documentary, is stated thus:The deceased Ponniammal (D-1) is the wife of the accused. Thedeceased Kondiah (D-2) and P.W.2 are the husband and wife and D-1Ponniammal is the brother's daughter of D-2. P.W.3 is the grand son ofD-2 and P.W.2. P.Ws.4 to 10 are also closely related to the deceased.All were residents of U.R.R. Kandigai/K.J.Kandigai, Pallippattu Taluk.About twelve years prior to the occurrence, D-1 fell in love with theaccused who was at Tiruppathi and married him and gave birth to two sons.5.2. On 12.1.2001, D-1 came from Tiruppathi to her parental houseand as it was found locked, she went to the house of P.W.2 and stayedthere. On 15.1.2001, D-1 went to K.J.Kandigai to the house of P.Ws.9and 10 and returned with her second child and when P.W.2 questioned herabout her coming with the child, D-1 told that her husband left thechild in the residence of P.Ws.9 and 10 and went back to Tiruppathi.P.W.2 asked D-1 why the accused did not accompany her, for which shereplied that since she had come back to her parental home afterquarrelling with him at Tirupathi due to his suspicion about her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fidelity, he came to K.J.Kandigai to take back her to Tirupathi, forwhich she refused and hence, he left the child and went back toTirupathi. 5.3. While so, on the night of 16.1.2001, while P.W.2 took her bedin the room at the eastern side along with P.W.3, her grand son, who wassuffering from chicken pox, D-1 took her bed in the hall and D-2 tookhis bed in another room at the western side. At about 11.45 p.m., onbeing waken up by P.W.3, her grand son, P.W.2 heard the distressingcries of D-1 from the hall and as soon as she went there, she saw theaccused sitting on the body of D-1 and stabbing her indiscriminatelywith a soori knife. When she intervened and requested the accused notto cut D-1, the accused turned to her and stabbed her on right thigh,due to which P.W.2 raised alarm and fell down unconsious. On hearingthe cries of P.W.2, D-2 came out from his room only to receive a stabinjury on his neck from the accused. Thereafter, the accused went awayfrom the spot taking his son along with him. The occurrence was alsowitnessed by P.W.3, grand son. P.W.2, after regaining herself, went tothe house of P.Ws.4 and 5 and informed them about the incident andP.W.4, in turn, informed the same to other villagers and thereafter, toP.W.14. On receipt of the information from P.W.4 and others at about2.00 a.m., P.W.14 came to the scene of occurrence and after seeing thedead bodies of D-1 and D-2 as well as the injuries found on P.W.2, hesent a message to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, who onreceipt of the message, came to the house of P.W.2 and recorded herstatement, which is marked as Ex.P.1 in the case and obtained her leftthumb impression in the statement. He prepared a complaint, Ex.P.2 andthereafter, went to R.K.Pet police station along with P.W.2 and handedover Exs.P.1 and P.2 to P.W.17, Sub-Inspector of Police at about 5.00a.m.. 5.4. P.W.17, on the basis of Exs.P.1 and P.2, registered a case inCrime No.29 of 2001 for offences under Sections 302, 324, 307 IPC andprepared Ex.P.8, printed F.I.R. He sent the original printed F.I.R.,Ex.P.8 along with Ex.P.2, complaint, to court and copies to superiorofficers. P.W.2 was sent to hospital along with a memo.5.5. P.W.2, appeared before P.W.9, Assistant Civil Surgeon,Tiruttani Government Hospital, at about 12.00 noon on 17.1.2001 and whenquestioned by the doctor as to the cause of injuries, P.W.2 informed himthat the assault was by one known person at 12.30 a.m. on the night of16/17.1.2001. The doctor examined her and noticed the followinginjuries:-1. Laceration 2 inches over the medial aspect of right thigh.2. Contusion over the left parietal region.P.W.9 issued Ex.P.9, accident register copy and opined that the injuriesare simple in nature. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.6. P.W.20, Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of theprinted F.I.R., proceeded to the scene of occurrence. He observed thespot and prepared Ex.P.3, observation mahazar and rough sketch, Ex.P.14.He conducted inquest over the dead body of D-1 between 6.30 a.m. and7.30 a.m. and examined witnesses and recorded their statements.Thereafter, inquest over the dead body of D-2 was conducted between 7.30a.m. and 8.30 a.m., during which witnesses were examined and theirstatements were recorded. The inquest reports are Exs.P.15 and P.16respectively. He caused the scene of occurrence to be photographed byphotographer, P.W.13 and thereafter, sent the dead bodies to thehospital through P.W.15, police constable, with a requisition to conductpost-mortem.5.7. P.W.16, Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital,Tiruttani, on receipt of the dead bodies and the requisition to conductautopsy at about 5.00 p.m. on 17.1.2001, commenced the post-mortem onthe dead body of Ponniammal (D-1) at about 2.30 p.m. on 18.1.2001 andfound the following external injuries:-1. Stab injury over her right side nose around 3 ½ x 2 x 4 cm.Size.2. Stab injury over her right side neck around 3 x 2 x 4r cm.in size.3. Stab wound over right shoulder anterior aspect around 6 x 3x 8 cm. Size.4. Stab wound over back of right shoulder around 8 x 3 x 3 cm.In size.5. Stab wound over right axilla around 3 x 3 x 4 cm. In size.6. Stab wound over her right side lateral chest wall at thelevel of 10th and 11th rib around 3 x 3 x 9 cm. In size directeddownwards and medially.7. Stab wound over the midline neck around 3 x 2 x 4 cm. Insize.8. Stab wound over her left shoulder around 4 x 3 x 5 cm. Insize.9. Stab wound over her left elbow around 3 x 2 x 3 in size.10. Stab wound over her left hand around 3 x 1 x 1/2 in size.11. Abrasion over her left forearm 2 x 1 cm. In size.12. Stab wound right arm 6 x 3 x 8 cm. In size.13. Four stab wounds over her anterior thigh measures about 3x 2 x 5 cm. Each.14. A stab wound around her right back of thigh around 3 x 2 x2 cm. In size.The doctor issued Ex.P.6, post-mortem certificate with his opinion thatD-1 died on account of multiple stab injuries with injury to vitalorgans and of haemorrhagic shock. Thereafter, the doctor commenced thepost-mortem on the dead body of Kondiah (D-2) at about 3.00 p.m. andfound the following external injuries:-1. A stab wound over his right axilla directed towards above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and medially measuring around 9 x 2 x 3 cm. In size.2. A stab wound over his midline neck just above medial end ofleft clavicle around 3 x 2 x 5 cm. In size.3. A stab wound over his back of left forearm around 5 x 2 x 3cm. In size.4. Abrasion over his left elbow 3 x 2 cm. In size.5. Abrasion over his right knee 3 x 2 cm. In size.6. A stab wound over his right leg upper 1/3rd around 4 x 3 x3 cm. In size.The doctor issued Ex.P.7, post-mortem certificate opining that D-2 diedof stab injuries to major vessels with haemorrhagic shock.5.8. In the meantime, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.20, continuing withhis investigation, went in search of the accused along with witnesses,P.Ws.11 and 12 and on being pointed out by the witnesses, arrested theaccused at the bus stop near Peerkuppam and questioned him in thepresence of witnesses. The accused gave a voluntary confessionstatement admitting the offence, which was recorded. The admissibleportion of the said statement is Ex.P.4, pursuant to which, M.O.1, sooriknife with iron handle, was recovered at about 5.00 p.m., on beingproduced by the accused from the bushes behind the house of P.W.10. Theaccused was sent to Court for judicial remand. Thereafter, P.W.20obtained the material objects, M.Os.2 to 6 produced by the constable whowas present at the time of post-mortem under Form 95 and sent the samealong with M.O.1, soori knife, to Court for forwarding the same tolaboratory for chemical analysis with Ex.P.10, letter and the Court, inturn, sent the same to the laboratory with a covering letter Ex.P.11.Thereafter, he examined P.W.19, the Court Clerk, and P.W.18, the doctor,who examined P.W.2 and recorded their statements. As P.W.20 wastransferred, P.W.21 took up the investigation and verified theinvestigation conducted by his predecessor and after completing theinvestigation, laid the final report before the Court against theaccused for offences under Sections 302, 324, 307 IPC.5.9. The case was committed to Court of Sessions and charges wereframed and since the accused denied his complicity in the offence, thecase was taken up for trial. In order to substantiate the chargeslevelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution produced 21witnesses and relied on 16 exhibits and marked 7 material objects, asreferred to above. On completion of the evidence, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and theaccused denied them as false. Neither any witness was examined nor anydocumentary evidence was produced on his side.6. After hearing both sides and on scrutiny of the entire materialsavailable, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty as per thecharges levelled and awarded the punishments referred to above.Aggrieved, the appellant/accused has brought forth this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.1. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for theappellant/accused are that:(i)P.Ws.2 and 3, the two eye witnesses, are closely related tothe deceased and hence, they are interested witnesses; (ii)P.W.2 could not have witnessed the offence committed bythe accused on D-2 since after she received the stabinjury, she became unconscious; (iii)Since P.W.2 has stated that she became unconscious forhalf-an-hour after receiving the stab injury, the evidenceof other witnesses that immediately after the occurrenceP.W.2 came and informed them cannot be believed; and(iv)there is a contradiction between the evidence of witnesseswith regard to the time of arrest of the accused.7.2. Per contra, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional PublicProsecutor strongly opposing the above submissions, contended that, (i) even though P.Ws.2 and 3 are close relatives of the deceased,they are natural witnesses since D-1 was staying in the house ofP.W.2 on the day of occurrence and more so, when D-2 is the husbandof P.W.2 and she also suffered injuries in the course of sametransaction and hence, their evidence as to the occurrence cannotbe discarded;(ii) even assuming that after receiving the stab injury, P.W.2became unconscious, it is the clear evidence of P.W.3, that he sawthe accused stabbing his aunt (D-1), grand mother (P.W.2) andthereafter, his grand father (D-2). Though P.W.3 was a minor atthe time of occurrence, the trial Court after scrutinisingcarefully upon his capability to give evidence, in Court, hasrightly accepted his evidence that he saw the occurrence;(iii) apart from the eye witnesses, the case is furtherstrengthened by the evidence of the other witnesses, who speakabout the motive part of the occurrence and the quarrel between theaccused and D-1 prior to the date of occurrence. The medicalevidence is also corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3;(iv) when there is a direct evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 regarding theoccurrence, the contradiction with regard to the time of arrestlacks significane, since the evidence of the investigating officeron this aspect cannot be disbelieved, more so, when he was not atall cross-examined on this point; and(v) hence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond allreasonable doubts and the conviction and sentence imposed on theappellant are to be confirmed.8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions ofboth sides and perused the entire materials placed before us. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution hasestablished its case beyond all reasonable doubts.10. Before we proceed to consider the issue in question, let usfirst analyse whether the death of the two deceased persons was due tohomicidal violence. The doctor, P.W.16, was examined on this aspect andhe has stated in his evidence that D-1 died due to the multiple stabinjuries and due to the injury to vital organs as well as haemorragicshock and that D-2 died due to the stab injuries to major vessels withhaemorrhagic shock. He has issued Exs.P.6 and P.7, post-mortemcertificates, describing the injuries found on the dead body. He hasfurther stated that the injuries on D-1 and D-2 would have been causedwith a sharp-edged weapon. Hence, we do not have any difficulty inholding that the death of the two deceased persons was due to homicidalviolence.11.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence waswitnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3, of whom, P.W.2 is an injured witness. P.W.2in her evidence stated that on the date of occurrence, D-1 came to herhouse along with her second son, after quarrelling with the accused andwhen questioned about the accused, she has replied that since sherefused to go along with the accused to Tirupathi, the accused alonewent back to Tirupathi leaving his son and on that night, at about 11.45p.m., on being waken up by her grand son, P.W.3, who was lying besideher as he was suffering from chicken pox, she heard the distressingcries of D-1 and when she came out of the room, she saw the accusedstabbing D-1 indiscriminately with a knife and that when she intervened,the accused also inflicted a stab injury on her right thigh. She hasfurther stated that the accused also inflicted a stab injury on herhusband, D-2 when he came out of the room on hearing her distressingcries. 11.2. P.W.3, grand son of P.W.2, in his evidence, stated that hesaw the accused stabbing his aunt (D-1), his grand mother (P.W.2) andhis grand father (D-2). True, it is, that P.W.3 was a minor at the timeof occurrence and that he was suffering from chicken pox at that time.But, this cannot preclude the Court from drawing an inference that hewitnessed the occurrence. It is obvious that when a person sufferingfrom chicken pox, during night hours, he would have been awakended dueto itchiness on all over his body. That apart, while he was in witnessbox, he was questioned as to his capability to give evidence in Courtand after being satisfied that he is capable to give evidence, hisevidence was recorded. In his evidence, he has stated that he wasbeside his grand mother; that his grand father (D-2) was sleeping inanother room and his aunt (D-1) was sleeping in the hall and that atabout 11.45 p.m., he heard the cries of his aunt (D-1) and he came outof the room and saw the accused sitting on D-1 and stabbing her. He hasstated that he waked up his grand mother and that the accused stabbedher also with the knife. He has further stated that as his grand fatherwas having calloused sole on his feet, before he came out of the room https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after wearing slippers, the accused stabbed him also and thereafter, hehid himself in a room and the accused went away taking his second son. 11.3. It is the further evidence of both P.Ws.2 and 3 thatthereafter P.W.2 went to P.W.4's house and informed him, who, in turn,brought P.W.14 and other villagers to the scene of occurrence. P.W.14after reaching the scene of occurrence sent a message to P.W.1, who, onenquiry with P.W.2, reduced her statement into writing, on the basis ofwhich, P.W.18, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case andinvestigation was taken up thereafter.12.1. The main contention that P.Ws.2 and 3 are partisan witnesses,since they are close relatives of the deceased and hence, their evidencecannot be believed. The law on the point is well settled. Relationshipis not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more oftenthan not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and makeallegations against an innocent person. 12.2. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1953 SC 364), theApex Court laid down as hereunder:-"26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unlesshe or she springs from sources which are likely to be taintedand that usually means unless the witness has cause, such asenmity against the accused, to which to implicate him falsely.Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen thereal culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It istrue, when feelings run high and there is personal cause forenmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent personagainst whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, butfoundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere factof relationship far from being a foundation is often a sureguarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting anysweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its ownfacts. Our observations are only made to combat what is sooften put forward in cases before us a general rule ofprudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must belimited to and be governed by its own facts."12.3. Again in Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, the ApexCourt observed that:"But it would, we think, be unreaonsable to contend thatevidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on theground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses..... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the soleground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure ofjustice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how muchevidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to becautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that suchevidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot beaccepted as correct." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.4. Further, in Pulicheria Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11SCC 444, it has been observed:".. that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely onthe ground that he is either partisan or interested or closelyrelated to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to betrustworthy and credible. It only requires scrutiny with morecare and caution, so that neither the guilty escape nor theinnocent wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny, theevidence is found to be reliable and probable, it can be actedupon. If it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it oughtto be rejected. Where the witness has a motive to falselyimplicate the accused, his testimony should have corroborationin regard to material particulars before it is accepted."12.5. In the case on hand, no doubt, P.Ws.2 and 3 are closelyrelated to the deceased. However, whenever a false implication is takenas defence, the Court should be obliged to adopt a careful approach andanalyse their evidence to find out whether their evidence are cogent andcredible. On going through the evidence of of P.W.2, who is nonethelessthe wife of D-2, we find that she also sustained injuries during thecourse of same transaction and therefore, she would only be interestedin seeing that the real assailant is brought into book and would notimplicate the accused falsely. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 about theoccurrence is also fortified by the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 and 14,residents of the same village as well as P.W.1, the VillageAdministrative Officer, to whom P.W.2 gave a statement, Ex.P.1,resulting in the registration of the case. The evidence of P.W.2 as tothe overt act attributed to the accused is also corroborated with theinjuries found noted by the doctor, P.W.16, who conducted post-mortem onthe dead bodies and the doctor, P.W.18, who examined P.W.2. ThoughP.Ws.2 and 3 were cross-examined in detail, nothing concrete waselicited in favour of the accused for this Court to discard theirevidence. Their evidence are cogent, natural and trustworthy and hence,we find no reason to reject their evidence.13.1. Apart from the above evidence of the eye witnesses, P.Ws.2and 3, as regards the occurrence, the motive for the accused to attackthe deceased has also been brought forth by the prosecution throughother witnesses. As already stated earlier, D-1 told P.W.2 that theaccused was suspecting her fidelity, due to which there were quarrelsbetween them and hence, she came back to stay with her parents. Thatapart, P.W.7, a resident of the same village and also related to thedeceased and P.W.2, has stated in his evidence that three days prior tothe date of occurrence, the accused came to his house in search of hiswife, D-1 and as she was not there, he took the accused to his in-lawshouse at K.J.Kandigai, where they were informed that D-1 had gone tocinema and thus, they went to theatre and brought her to the residenceof P.Ws.9 and 10. It is the further evidence of P.W.7 that he andP.W.10 pacified D-1 to join her husband, for which she replied that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their marriage was a love marriage and that the witnesses had nobusiness to interfere. Thereafter, P.W.7 went out. P.W.10, in hisevidence, stated that on 14.1.2001, D-1 was brought by P.W.7 and theaccused and that he and P.W.7 pacified D-1, but both the accused and D-1did not heed their advice. On that evening, P.W.10 and his family alongwith D-1 and the accused went to a temple and on the morning of15.1.2001, they returned back and again, a quarrel ensued between theaccused and D-1 and P.W.10 tried to pacify them, but to no avail. It isthe evidence of P.W.10 that D-1 told that because of the thali chain shewas wearing, the accused was pestering her and so saying, she removedthe thali and gave it to the accused and that thereafter, P.W.10mollified the accused. 13.2. Further, P.W.11, a witness who accompanied the investigatingofficer, P.W.20, in search of the accused, also stated in his evidencethat after the accused was caught by the police near Peerkuppam busstand, the police enquired him and the accused informed them thatpursuant to the quarrel ensued between him and D-1, D-1 removed herthali chain and gave it to him and that she also informed him that shewould not live with him thereafter. The above evidence of P.Ws.2, 7, 10and 11 clinchingly establish that the accused suspected the fidelity ofD-1 and hence, there were frequent quarrels between them, during whichD-1 removed her thali chain, which made the accused to have grudgeagainst D-1. Thus, the motive for the accused to cause the murder of D-1 has been established by the prosecution.13.3. Once we accept the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and that the motive for the occurrencehaving been established by the prosecution, there cannot be anydifficulty for this Court to hold that the prosecution has establishedits case against the accused. 14. The contention that there is a contradiction between theevidence of witnesses with regard to the time of arrest of the accusedcannot be accepted, in view of the direct evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 aboutthe occurrence and more over, P.W.20, the investigating officer, was notat all cross-examined on this aspect and there is no reason for thisCourt to disbelieve the evidence of the investigating officer. Theother contentions that P.W.2 could not havewitnessed the accused stabbing D-2 since she became unconscious afterreceiving the stab injury and that P.W.2 could not have informed theother witnesses immediately after the occurrence also hold no water inview of the categorical evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, two eye witnesses,which clinchingly establish that it was the accused, who caused thedeath of two persons and also caused injuries on P.W.2 during the courseof same transaction, more so, when the occurrence itself had taken placein the house of P.W.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. From the above overwhelming evidence, we hold that theprosecution has established the case against the appellant/accusedbeyond all reasonable doubts and that the learned trial Judge wasjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The appeal,therefore, deserves to be dismissed and accoringly, dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsraTo1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Tiruvallur.2.-do- Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.3.The District Collector, Tiruvallur.4.The Director General of Police, Chennai.5.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Vellore.6.The Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet Police Station, TiruttaniTaluk, Tiruvallur District.7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.739 of 200717.03.2008SP(CO)rvr 21/05/08