Jayalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Bail SlipThe Appellant/ Accused namely Jayalakshmi was directed torelease on bail as per order of this Court dated 29.4.2002 and madein Crl.M.P.No.4050/02 in Crl.A.No.583/02 on the file of this Court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.12.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.A.No.583 of 2002Jayalakshmi...AppellantVs.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by the Inspector of PoliceYethapur Police StationSalem District(Cr.No.147/2001)...RespondentThis Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 ofCriminal Procedure Code as against the judgment and sentence ofimprisonment dated 22.03.2002 made in S.C.No.226 of 2001 on thefile of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salemand to set aside the same.For Appellant: Mr.K.SelvarajFor Respondent: Mr.R.Muniapparaj, Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)J U D G M E N TThe accused in S.C.No.226 of 2001, who stood charged for anoffence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC but found guiltyand convicted for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting tomurder punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC and awarded a sentenceof 5 years rigorous imprisonment in the said sessions case by thejudgment dated 22.03.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, SalemSessions Division, has come forward with this appeal challengingthe conviction recorded against her and the sentence imposed onher. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated asfollows:-a) The deceased Ramalingam was the own brother of P.W.1-Subramanian and the husband of Jayalakshmi, the appellant/accused.Both were residing in Aryapalayam, within the jurisdiction ofYethapur police station. The deceased Ramalingam developedsuspicion in the character of his wife, namely theappellant/accused, pursuant to which there were frequent quarrelsbetween them. On several occasions during such altercations, thedeceased Ramalingam used to beat his wife, the appellant/accusedand on such occasions, the appellant/ accused would leave him andgo to her parents' place. P.W.1-Subramanian used to pacify themand make them unite. Lastly, a few months prior to the date ofoccurrence, namely 14.02.2001, similar incident took place pursuantto which the appellant/accused went to her parents place.Thereafter the deceased Ramalingam, promising to mend his wayspleaded with P.W.1 to persuade the appellant/accused to come andlive with him. P.W.1 also persuaded the appellant/accused to givethe deceased yet another chance to mend his ways and lead apeaceful marital life and consequently four months prior to thedate of occurrence, the appellant/accused came and joined with herhusband Ramalingam. b) While so, on 14.02.2001 at about 2.00 p.m, the deceasedRamalingam was quarreling with his wife, namely the appellant/accused, as some of his friends had poisoned his mind over thecharacter of the appellant/accused. P.W.1 pacified them. P.W.2-Valli is the wife of P.W.1. At about 9.00 p.m – 10.00 p.m, sheheard noises created by the quarrel between the deceased and theappellant/accused coming from their house in Aryapalayam.Thereafter, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to bed. However, at about12.00 midnight they heard a lot of noise coming from theresidential portion of deceased Ramalingam and both of them went tothe said residential portion in which the deceased and his wifeappellant/accused were residing. When they forced to open thedoor, they saw the ghastly scene of the appellant/accused cuttingthe deceased Ramalingam on his neck twice with M.O.1 - Axe andthereby causing the death of Ramalingam instantaneously. At thetime of occurrence, P.W.1 and 2 heard the deceased telling theappellant/accused that he would kill her with vegetable cutter(mhpths; kid) consequent to which the appellant/accused cut thedeceased with M.O.1 - Axe proclaiming that before ever he would doso she would kill him. The appellant/ accused cut the deceased onhis neck twice with M.O.1 - Axe and thereby caused hisinstantaneous death. P.W.1 and 2 witnessed the occurrence with thehelp of the illumination caused by the electric bulb in the saidhouse. When the appellant/accused tried to escape from the placeof occurrence after throwing the said weapon (Axe) on the ground,P.W.1 and 2 caught hold of her, prevented her from escaping fromthe said place and made her to sit. As it was the night time,P.W.1 waited till the morning. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ c) P.W.3 - Mathiazhagan, a resident of the said village, uponhearing the news went to the place of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m,on 15.02.2001. He wrote the complaint to the dictation of P.W.1and handed over the same to P.W.1 to be presented in the policestation. At about 6.00 a.m on 15.02.2001 leaving the dead body andthe accused to be guarded by the villagers, P.W.1 went to Yethapurpolice station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.9 - Sivasamy wasthe then Inspector of police (in-charge) of Yethapur policestation. On the said date at about 7.00 a.m, he received Ex.P1 -complaint from P.W.1, prepared Ex.P11 - First Information Report inthe printed format and registered a case in Crime No.147 of 2001 ofYethapur police station against the appellant/accused for anoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The original complaintand the first information report were sent to the concernedJudicial Magistrate through P.W.7 - Veeramuthu (Head constable).P.W.9 - Inspector of Police, after registering the case anddespatching the complaint and first information report to thecourt, went to the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P2 -Observation Mahazar and Ex.P12 - Rough sketch. Through P.W.5 -Dinakaran (photographer), he caused photographs of the scene ofoccurrence to be taken. The photographs taken by P.W.5 are Ex.P4series and their negatives are M.O.4 series. The InvestigatingOfficer, conducted inquest, prepared Ex.P13 - Inquest Report in thepresence of Panchayatdars and sent the dead body for autopsy toAtthur Government Hospital along with Ex.P7 - requisition forautopsy. At about 12.30 p.m, P.W.9 arrested the accused andrecorded her confession statement. During the course ofinvestigation P.W.9 also recovered the following material objectsunder Ex.P3 - Seizure Mahazar. M.O.1 - blood stained Axe, M.O.2 -blood stained earth, M.O.3 - simple earth series, M.O.4 -negatives, M.O.5 - Lungie and M.O.6 - brief. P.W.4 - Ramasamy(Village Administrative Officer) and the village menial Arjunansigned in all the mahazars as attesting witnesses. d) P.W.6 - Dr.Damayanthi conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P6 -Post Mortem examination certificate. The following injuries werenoted.i)A horizontal laceration measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deepon the front side of the neck, 4 cm below the adams apple;ii)A horizontal laceration measuring 6 cm x 3 cm x bone deepon the right side of the neck, 6 cm above the right clavicleiii)A horizontal abrasion measuring 3 cm x 5 cm on theanterior aspect of neck;(and)iv) An old cut injury on the left little finger at its baseshowing signs of healing at the edges of the injury. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ On internal examination at the point of injury nos.1 and 2neck muscles were found cut, trachea was found lacerated and filledwith blood clots. Right carotid arteries and jugular veins werefound cut. But Hyoid bone was intact. No fracture of bone wasfound. On the examination conducted, P.W.6 opined that thedeceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage between12.00 and 18.00 hours prior to autopsy due to the injuries to thegreat vessels at the neck and the injury to the trachea. e) The material objects recovered during the investigationwere sent to the forensic laboratory through court on therequisition of the investigating officer, whereupon the ChemicalAnalysis Report - Ex.P9 and Serological Report - Ex.P10 wereobtained. P.W.9 who continued the investigation, recorded thestatements of all the witnesses, completed his investigation andsubmitted a final report on 15.02.2001 on the file of the JudicialMagistrate No.1, Atthur to the effect that the appellant/accusedhad voluntarily caused the death of her husband Ramalingam and thuscommitted an offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC.The learned Judicial Magistrate took the same as P.R.C.No.2/2001,furnished copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution tothe appellant/accused and committed the case for trial to thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Salem Sessions who took it on file asSessions Case No.226 of 2001 and made over the same to theAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem fordisposal according to law. 3. In the trial court a charge against the appellant/accusedfor an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed as theappellant/accused pleaded not guilty the case was tried. In ordersubstantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as ninewitnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.9), marked fourteen documents (Ex.P1 toP14) and produced six material objects (M.O.1 to 6). On completionof evidence on the side of prosecution, the accused was questionedunder Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence adduced on the side of theprosecution. The appellant/accused denied them as false. Nowitness was examined and no document was marked on the side of therespondents. 4. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced oneither side took the view that the prosecution had proved its casethat the appellant/accused voluntarily caused the death of herhusband Ramalingam. However, it also held that though the act ofcausing death of Ramalingam was voluntary, the said act would comeunder the first exception to Section 300 and hence theappellant/accused was guilty of an offence of culpable homicide notamounting to murder punishable under Section 304 part II and not anoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly the trialcourt convicted the accused for the said offence and awarded thepunishment as stated above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. As against the conviction recorded and the sentence ofimprisonment awarded by the trial court, the appellant/accused haspreferred this Criminal Appeal on various grounds enumerated in theappeal petition.6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/accused,Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the appellant made the followingsubmissions:-The trial court committed an error in convicting the appellantfor the offence punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC merely on thebasis of the interested testimonies of P.W.1 and 2 who are nonother than the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased . Thoughone Ayyavu had also been cited as an eye witness to corroborate theevidence of P.W.1, the prosecution failed to examine the above saidindependent witness and the non-examination of such independent eyewitness was not properly considered by the court below. There wasan unexplained delay of 7 hours in lodging the complaint and courtbelow should have held that the unexplained delay of 7 hours wasfatal to the prosecution case and acquitted the appellant/accusedgiving benefit of doubt. There were material contradictionsbetween P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.9 regarding the lodging of Ex.P1 -complaint. P.W.1 would state that the police recorded hisstatement and obtained his signature, whereas P.W.3 would statethat the complaint was written by him to the dictation of P.W.1 atthe place of occurrence itself and P.W.9 also would state thatwritten complaint was presented by P.W.1, based on which heregistered the case. The said contradiction was not properlyadverted by the court below. The said contradiction as to how thecomplaint was lodged, if considered in proper perspective, wouldlead to the inevitable conclusion that there was some kind ofdeliberation before lodging of the complaint. The contradictionsbetween evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 were not properly considered bythe court below. According to P.W.1 and 2, the appellant/accusedcut twice on the neck of the deceased Ramalingam with an Axe,whereas four injuries, three on the neck and one on the littlefinger were noted by P.W.6. The Medical officer who conductedautopsy, namely P.W.6, was of the view that there was possibilityof causing incised wound rather than laceration when one isattacked with the sharp edge of an axe. As such the court belowhas not properly considered the possibility of the injuries foundon the deceased could have been caused by M.O.1 - axe. If all theabove said aspects were taken into consideration, the trial courtought to have held the appellant/accused not guilty of any offenceand it should have acquitted her giving the benefit of doubt.7. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in additionto and without prejudice to the above said contentions, also arguedthat the trial court having found that the deceased who was underthe influence of alcohol attempted to kill the appellant/accusedwith a vegetable cutter (mhpths; kid), should have also held thatthe act of causing the death of the deceased was in lawful exercise https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of private defence and hence no offence was committed by theappellant/accused. The learned counsel contended further that,even if it is assumed that the appellant/ accused had eitherexceeded the limit in lawful exercise of private defence or thatshe committed the act of causing the death of the deceased out ofprovocation, the same would amount to culpable homicide notamounting to murder, the trial court should have imposed a lessersentence than what was imposed by the trial court; that consideringthe fact that the appellant/ accused is having two minor childrento be looked after by her, the punishment of five years rigorousimprisonment was highly excessive and that hence the same should bereduced considerably, preferably to the extent of imprisonmentalready undergone.8. This court heard the learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) on the above said contentions made on behalf of theappellant/accused and paid its anxious considerations to the same.9. The deceased was the husband of the appellant/accused. Thetwo witnesses examined as eye witnesses, namely P.W.1 and 2 are thebrother and brother's wife, respectively, of the deceased. Theappellant/accused did not dispute before the trial court the causeof death of the deceased Ramalingam. After his death was reportedto the police and the case was registered, P.W.9 - the inspector ofpolice took up investigation, went to the place of occurrence,conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and preparedEx.P13 - Inquest Report in the presence of witnesses andpanchayatdars. The body was also sent to the hospital with arequisition for autopsy. P.W.6, who conducted autopsy and issuedEx.P6 - Post Mortem certificate, has expressed a clear opinion thatthe deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due tothe injuries 1 and 2 found on the neck causing damage to the greatvessels and the injury to trachea. According to her opinion, thedeath could have occurred between 12.00 to 18.00 hours prior toautopsy. Autopsy was conducted at 4.00 p.m on 15.02.2001.Therefore the death should have occurred between 10.00 p.m on14.02.2001 and 4.00 a.m on 15.02.2001. The death occurred,according to the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 at about 12.00 midnight on14.02.2001/15.02.2001. From the evidence of P.W.6 and the Postmortem certificate - Ex.P6 it is quite obvious that the deceasedRamalingam had died due to the injuries 1 and 2 found on the neckas noted in the post mortem certificate. The medical evidencediscussed above conclusively establish that the death of deceasedRamalingam was the result of an act of homicidal violence. Besidesthe fact that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to theinjuries found on the neck, which were the result of an act ofhomicidal violence, was not disputed by the appellant/accused atany stage of the proceedings. The said injuries were not suggestedto be either accidental or self-inflicted. As such, without anyimpediment, whatsoever, the finding of the trial court in thisregard to the effect that the death was the result of homicidalviolence deserves to be confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. In the instant case, the story of the prosecution is thatdue to the quarrel between the husband and wife, theappellant/accused inflicted injuries on the neck of the deceasedusing M.O.1 - axe and caused his instantaneous death. Ofcourse itis true that three witnesses were cited in the final report (chargesheet) as eye witnesses to the occurrence and out of them only twowitnesses were examined and the third witness by name Ayyavu wasnot examined before the trial court on the side of the prosecution.It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all thewitnesses and it shall be the prerogative of the prosecution todecide by what evidence and by examining which witness, theprosecution case should be sought to be proved. The accused cannotcompel the prosecution to examine any witness which the prosecutionmight have decided not to examine. Now the law has been clearlylaid down in many of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt (citing such judgments is not necessary) that the courtshould adopt the process of elimination and after eliminating theevidence of untrustworthy witnesses if there remains the evidenceof a single witness which can be believed and the law does notrequire corroboration, conviction can be made based on the evidenceof such a single witness. If at all the accused is of the viewthat the examination of a particular witness cited in thememorandum of evidence annexed to the charge-sheet will eitherdisprove the prosecution case or prove the innocence of theaccused, then the accused shall take steps to examine him/her as awitness on his/her side. If it is not done so, arguments advancedon the side of the accused that the non-examination of a particularwitness will impair the case of the prosecution, cannot beaccepted. 11. Above all, in this case, it is the contention of theappellant that the two eye witnesses examined by the prosecutionbeing the close relatives of the deceased, their evidence shouldnot have been accepted and acted upon. It is pertinent to notethat P.W.1 and 2 are close relatives not only to the deceased butalso the appellant/accused. The appellant/ accused is none otherthan the wife of the deceased. The eye witnesses are none otherthan the brother and brother's wife of the deceased. Though anattempt was made to show that there was strained relationshipbetween the deceased and his brother-P.W.1 and that he could havecaused the death of deceased and implicated the appellant/accused,excepting a bald suggestion which was promptly denied, there is noother material in support of such suggestion. The said attemptmade by the accused hopelessly failed. There is no evidence toimpute motive on the part of P.W.1 to falsely implicate theappellant/accused. Even assuming that P.W.1 and 2 being thebrother and brother's wife of the deceased are interestedwitnesses, the legal consequence is that their evidence cannot bestraight away rejected but should be accepted or rejected afterputting them to the test of careful scrutiny. After applying theabove test to the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, this court is of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ view that their evidence cannot be rejected as unreliable. Thealleged contradictions between the evidences of P.W.1 and 2 are infact no contradiction at all and even assuming if there are a few,they shall be trivial and immaterial, which will not affect theirveracity in any manner.12. The next contention of the learned counsel for theappellant is that the evidence of P.W.1 on the one hand and P.W.3and 9 on the other hand contradict with each order regarding whereand how Ex.P1 - complaint was prepared. According to him when thecomplaint forming the very basis of the prosecution was lodgeditself is in doubt, the entire prosecution theory should bedisbelieved. It is the further contention of the learned counselfor the appellant that there was an unexplained delay of 7 hours inlodging complaint which shall be fatal to the prosecution cases.Both the contentions, according to the considered view of thiscourt, do not merit acceptance. Of course, it is true that P.W.1stated that his statement was recorded and his signature wasobtained in the police station. However, P.W.3 would state that hewas the scribe of the complaint and the same was scribed by him tothe dictation of P.W.1 in the place of occurrence itself. Hisevidence is corroborated by P.W.9 who has stated that P.W.1 gave awritten complaint and on receipt of the written complaint heregistered the case. The endorsement found in Ex.P1 - Complaintalso confirms the same. Under such circumstances, the slightvariation in this regard in the evidence of P.W.1, in chiefexamination, which may be even due to lose of memory caused by thelapse of time, shall not affect his veracity in any way. Thoughsuch a memory lose was exhibited in the answer given in the chiefexamination of P.W.1, in the cross-examination he has clearlystated that he got the complaint written by P.W.3 - Mathiazhaganto his dictation, took it to the police station and lodged it withthe police. In the light of the same, The above said contradictionpointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is not amaterial contradiction affecting the veracity of the above saidwitnesses or the prosecution case as such. 13. So far as the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned,proper explanation has been offered by P.W.1 which cannot bebrushed aside or rejected as untenable. Occurrence is said to havetaken place in a remote village at midnight. Hence P.W.1 waitedtill the morning and at 6.00 a.m after asking the persons collectedin the place of occurrence to look after the dead body and theaccused who had been detained there, went to the police station andlodged the complaint. Only an unexplained delay can be said to bea factor affecting the prosecution case. Mere delay alone shallnot be enough to throw out the prosecution case. Such a delay, tobe fatal to the prosecution case, should lead to an inference oratleast a reasonable suspicion that there had been concoction orembellishment. In this case apart from the fact that there is noscope for coming to the conclusion that the delay was utilised forconcoction or embellishment, there is a proper explanation for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ delay. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant that the prosecution case should have been rejectedon the ground that there was a delay of 7.00 hours in lodging thecomplaint, has got to be discountenanced.14. A weak attempt has been made on the part of the appellantto show that the injuries found on the deceased could not have beencaused by M.O.1 - axe. According to the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of P.W.6 - MedicalOfficer would indicate that an incised wound rather than laceratedwound could have been caused if M.O.1 - axe was used and that sincethe injuries 1 and 2 noted in the post mortem certificate found onthe neck of the deceased were lacerated wounds, they could not havebeen caused with M.O.1 - axe. This court is unable to accept theabove said contention for the simple reason that P.W.6 - MedicalOfficer has simply answered, "when a sharp edge weapon like axecomes into contact, it may cause an incised wound". However, theMedical Officer has clearly asserted that the above said injuriesfound on the neck of the deceased could have been caused by M.O.1 -axe. Pointing out the fact that the third injury, namely anabrasion found on the neck and the fourth injury found on the lefthand little finger, the learned counsel for the appellant arguedthat the same would falsify the case of the prosecution as it wasthe evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that the appellant/ accused cut onlytwice on the neck. So far as the abrasion found on the neck, notedas the third injury in the post mortem certificate, is concerned,P.W.6 - Medical Officer herself has opined clearly that whileinflicting a cut with an axe, besides laceration such an abrasionalso could have been caused. So far as the injury found on thelittle finger of left hand, noted as the 4th injury in the postmortem is concerned, it is quite obvious that the said injury wasnot the one sustained in the occurrence and that the same had beensustained by the deceased prior to the occurrence as the edges ofthe wound had been healed. Therefore, the arguments advanced bythe learned counsel for the appellant, pointing out the presence ofthird and fourth injuries, to the effect that the appellant/accusedcould not have been the assailant does not merit acceptance and thesame deserves to be rejected as untenable.15. The last limb of the argument, ofcourse a stronger oneadvanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that thedeceased had made an attempt on the life of the accused underinfluence of alcohol and tried to kill her with a vegetable cutter(mhpths; kid) and hence the appellant/accused had to exercise aright of private defence in causing the death of the deceased. Insupport of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellantpointed out the admission made by P.W.1 and 2 that they heard thedeceased shouting at the appellant/accused proclaiming to kill herwith vegetable cutter (mhpths; kid) and that only thereafter theappellant/accused took the axe and cut the deceased on his neckstating "Are you going to kill me? On the other hand, I will killyou". From the said evidence it is quite obvious that at the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instance the deceased scolded her and threatened her by words tokill her with a vegetable cutter (mhpths; kid) and that onlythereafter, the appellant/accused cut him with an axe stating thatshe would kill him. The same clearly evidences the intention onthe part of the appellant/ accused to kill her husband, deceasedRamalingam. If the circumstances under which she committed such anact leading to the death of her husband is considered, it shall bequite obvious that there was no imminent threat to her life fromthe deceased, as no vegetable cutter (mhpths; kid) was stated to beused by the deceased. Vegetable cutter (mhpths; kid) was also notfound in the place of occurrence and seized by the police.16. Under such circumstances due to prolonged quarrel andsince at one point of such quarrel a threat was made by thedeceased to kill the accused using vegetable cutter (mhpths; kid),the appellant/accused has caused the death of the deceased usingthe axe with the intention of causing his death. Such an act, nodoubt, shall amount to an exercise of right of private defenceexceeding the limit permissible in law and hence the same willclearly come under exception 2 to Section 300 which will take thecase to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder whichwould be otherwise an offence of murder. Furthermore, theprolonged quarrel making affront on the modesty of the accused byquestioning her character and the eventual proclamation that thedeceased would kill the appellant/accused are enough to hold thatthe same caused a sudden provocation which made her to react andkill him without any premeditation. Thus the act of the accusedwould fall under first exception to Section 300, making it anoffence of culpable homicide due to grave and sudden provocation.Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant thatthe act of the appellant/accused would come under the generalexception of Section 100 IPC does not merit any acceptance. On theother hand, the act of the accused clearly falls under exceptions 1and 2 of Section 300 which shall make it an offence of culpablehomicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 partI IPC. The court below, has rightly concluded that theappellant/accused was guilty of offence of culpable homicidepunishable under Section 304 and not an offence of murderpunishable under Section 302 IPC. However it has committed anerror in holding that the offence was punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC. It is true that no appeal has been filed by the Stateagainst the same. But the same shall have a bearing on thesentence.17. So far as the sentence is concerned, for an offence thatcomes under falls under part (1) of Section 304, the punishmentprescribed as imprisonment for life of or imprisonment of eitherdescription which may extend upto 10 years and fine. For anoffence that comes under part (ii) of Section 304 the punishment isimprisonment of either description upto 10 years or fine or both.The fact that the court below has awarded only a rigorous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imprisonment of 5 years will show that the court below itself hadshown leniency in the matter of punishment and no further leniencyis warranted in this appeal.18. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that there is no merit in the appeal that the sentenceawarded by the court below is quite reasonable and that the samedoes not warrant any interference by this court in this appeal.The appeal shall fail and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.19. The appellant/accused is on bail. The bail bond executedby her shall stand cancelled forthwith and the learned AdditionalDistrict Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem is directed to takesteps to secure the presence of the appellant/accused and commither to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The periodof sentence already undergone by her shall be given set off.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur2. Do thro the Chief Judicial MagistrateSalem3. The SuperintendentCentral Prison for women, Vellore4. The Public ProsecutorHigh Court, Madras5. The Inspector of PoliceYethapur Police Station,Salem District.6.Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem1 cc to M/s. K. Selvaraj, Advocate, Sr. 70940Crl.A.No.583/2002MG (CO)kk 29/12