High Court · 2025

Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed a charge under Section 306 IPC and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty.6. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14, exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked 1 material object as P.M.O.1.7. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in brief as follows;(a) P.W.1-Tmt.Jennath is the wife of the defacto complainant Asif Ali. Subsequent to lodging of complaint, the defacto complainant died on 13.10.2017. P.W.1 and the defacto complainant had two daughters, P.W.2-Anish Fathima and the deceased Ashar Nihar and a son Abdul Niyas. The deceased was given marriage to one Haja Nazirudeen and due to their wedlock, they were blessed with 2 children. Subsequently, there arose misunderstanding between them and their marriage was dissolved through Court. The children were in the custody of their father Haja Nazirudeen. After divorce, the deceased worked in a beauty parlour run by P.W.4-4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022Sugumaran. The deceased, who was in love with the accused, expressed her intention to marry him. Since the accused belonged to a different religion, the deceased's father initially opposed for marriage. Subsequently, the accused got converted into Islam and changed his name as Raja Mohammed and marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized in Kazimar Mosque in December-2013. (b) P.W.1 is living at H.M.S. Colony Arunachaleshwarar Nagar, Madurai, whereas, P.W.2 is residing at H.M.S. Colony, Nethaji Nagar 2nd Cross Street, Madurai with her husband. The deceased used to visit P.W.1's house daily. Since the deceased has not turned up on 17.07.2014 and she was not attending P.W.1's call, P.W.1 contacted her first daughter P.W.2, who also informed that the deceased was not attending her calls also. Thereafter both P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased and P.W.2 found the deceased hanging in the hall. On hearing P.W.2 shouting, the owner of the building P.W.8-Chandran and two other neighbors have come and broke open the door. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had taken the deceased immediately to nearby Vijay Hospital but on examining her, they informed that she was already dead. P.W.2 had taken the body of the deceased to their home and thereafter to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022(c) The accused was earlier working as a driver at Aknu Sundar School and subsequently discontinued the work and hence, he was unable to provide any money to run the family. The accused got the jewels from the deceased for conducting business and mortgaged the same and spent for his expenses. The deceased informed to her sister P.W.2 that since the accused was taking her jewels and was torturing her, she was upset. The deceased was under mental depression due to the torture of the accused and on 17.07.2014 evening she committed suicide. (d) The defacto complainant and P.W.2 went to S.S. Colony Police Station and the defacto complainant gave a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.11-the then Sub Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station received the complaint from the father of the deceased and registered a case in Crime No.930 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report under Ex.P.8. Since the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, he submitted the case file before the P.W.13-the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thilagar Thidal Sub Division. P.W.13 went to the occurrence place at about 09.00 a.m. on 18.07.2014 and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.9 in the presence of P.W.5-Murugan and one Subramanian and also drew a rough sketch under 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022Ex.P.10. He recovered the nylon rope (P.M.O.1) allegedly used for hanging around 10.00 a.m. in the presence of the same witnesses under the cover of seizure mahazar Ex.P.12. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter, he altered the case from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC and submitted the alteration report under Ex.P.13. (e) P.W.10 Arumuganayinar-the then Revenue Divisional Officer received the FIR from P.W.11 and went to Government Rajaji Hospital, inspected the body of the deceased and thereafter sent the body to postmortem. He examined the parents of the deceased and also the Panchayatars and recorded their statements and after completing his enquiry, submitted a preliminary report under Ex.P.6 and after the receipt of postmortem report, he submitted the final report under Ex.P.7 giving his opinion that the suicide was not due to the dowry harassment. (f) P.W.9-medical officer conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased along with Doctor Sathasivam and issued the postmortem certificate under Ex.P.4 reserving final opinion awaiting chemical examiner's report and after receipt of chemical examiner's report, they have given their final opinion under Ex.P.5 that the deceased would appear 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022to have died of asphyxia due to hanging. P.W.13 forwarded the case file to P.W.12-the then Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station. P.W.12 examined the witnesses Duraipandi, Virumandi, Muniyasamy and Sugumar and recorded their statements. He examined P.W.11-Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and also P.W.9-medical officer, who conducted postmortem. P.W.14, who took up the case for further investigation on 21.10.2015, arrested the accused at about 19.45 hours on 21.10.2015 nearby Kalavasal bus stop, recorded his statement and sent him for remand. He also examined the first wife of the accused Senthamarai Selvi and recorded her statement and after completing the investigation, he filed the final report on 24.10.2015 against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. With the examination of P.W.14, the prosecution has closed their side evidence.8. When the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating aspects as against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he denied the same and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. The accused has stated that he is not having any defence evidence.8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 20229. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2021 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 10. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in S.C.No.486 of 2016 dated 08.12.2021 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.11. Heard Mr.P.Andiraj, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police. 12. It is not in dispute that the accused and the deceased had entered 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022into their second marriage in December-2013 after failure of their respective first marriage. It is also not in dispute that the deceased had 2 children through her first husband and that the children were under the care and custody of their father. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the accused, who was a Hindu by birth, before marrying the deceased converted into Islam and changed his name as Raja Mohammed. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was working as a beautician in a beauty parlour at H.M.S. Colony and that the accused was earlier working as a driver at Aknu Sundar School. 13. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused, after quitting his job as a driver, took the jewels of the deceased for business, mortgaged them for personal expenses and repeatedly demanded more jewels, torturing her for them and this alleged cruelty drove the deceased to commit suicide. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and there is absolutely no independent witness to prove the alleged cruelty, 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 contains exaggerations and improvements from their earlier stand, that the entire reading of complaint under Ex.P.1 does not make out a case against the accused as there are no specific allegations about the cruelty and the role played by the accused towards the occurrence, that P.W.1 did not make any allegations against the accused while giving statement before the P.W.10-Revenue Divisional Officer, that though P.W.2 before the trial Court had claimed that she met the accused and the deceased on the date of occurrence by 04.30 p.m. and that subsequently, the accused came to her house on enquiring whereabouts of the deceased, but the same does not find place in the complaint as well as in her statement before the investigating officer, that the Panchayatars during enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate (P.W.10) did not state any allegations against the accused, that the prosecution has miserably failed to show any positive act on the part of the accused, which instigate the deceased for committing suicide and that since the prosecution has not proved the foundational facts, the question of drawing presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise. 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 202215. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would further submit that P.W.1 admitted in her evidence that the deceased was very affectionate towards her 2 children and she was worrying about her children and as a result, she was in depression, that the prosecution has failed to investigate the case in that angle and that the learned trial Judge, without considering the evidence in proper perspective and without taking note of the legal position, has proceeded to convict the accused in a mechanical fashion and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 16. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that P.W.1 and P.W.2 gave evidence categorically that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture by the accused, that P.W.2 has specifically stated that when she met the deceased along with the accused at 04.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, the deceased had informed her that the accused was getting jewels one by one and was harassing her and that she had lost her life, that the accused came to her house at about 06.00 p.m. and enquired about whereabouts of the deceased, that there is evidence to show that the accused had quarrelled with the deceased and left the home just before the 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022occurrence, that the other witnesses corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased in their house, that the prosecution through ample evidence has proved the cruelty and also proved the facts necessary to draw presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act but the accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the prosecution, that the learned trial Judge rightly appreciating the evidence available on record and by applying the legal position correctly convicted the accused and that therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. 17. Before entering into further, it is necessary to refer Sections 306 and 107 IPC and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act,“Section 306 IPC - Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.Section 107 IPC - Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who—(First)— Instigates any person to do that thing; or(Secondly)— Engages with one or more other person or 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. –– When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]”18. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022with the scope of Section 113-A, has observed as follows;“This provision was introduced by Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26.12.1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four-corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to any one outside the occupants of the house. How-ever still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression - 'The other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'May presume' used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says-'whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it.'”19. In the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), two foundational aspects required 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022so as to attract Section 113-A are available as the prosecution has shown that the deceased had committed suicide and such suicide has been committed within the period of 7 years from the date of her marriage. Regarding the third foundational fact whether the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, except alleging that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused, the prosecution has not shown any acts or conduct of the accused that can be considered as cruelty. 20. Admittedly, P.W.1 has nowhere whispered that she was informed by the deceased that the accused had taken jewels from her and subjected her to cruelty. As already pointed out, P.W.2 alone had deposed that she was informed so by the deceased. P.W.2 has also not stated any specific incidents of cruelty or harassment alleged to have been stated by the deceased. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), P.W.2, in her evidence, would say that she met the deceased and the accused by 04.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and the deceased had complained of the harassment meted out by the accused. P.W.2 would say, 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022“,g;gbNa xt;nthU eifahf vd;dplkpUe;J thq;fptpl;lhh; vd;Wk; jd;id Jd;GWj;JtjhfTk; jdJ tho;f;if Vkhw;wk; Mfptpl;ljhfTk; $wpdhh;. ,J eP Njbf;nfhz;l tho;f;if nghWikahfj;jhd; cwhz;by; nra;aNtz;Lk; eP nghWikahf ,U vd;W ehd; $wpNdd;.”21. P.W.2 would further say that at about 06.00 p.m. on that day, the accused came to her house and informed that the deceased was missing. P.W.2, in her evidence, would admit that she accompanied her father to the police station for lodging the complaint and that she was aware of the contents of the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the complaint does not contain anything about the meeting of P.W.2 with the accused and the deceased at about 04.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and visiting of the accused to her house enquiring the whereabouts of the deceased. During cross-examination, P.W.2 would say that she does not remember as to whether the said aspects were informed to the investigating officer. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, P.W.13-investigating officer, in his cross-examination, would admit that P.W.2 has not stated about the said incidents allegedly occurred at 04.30 p.m. and 06.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. He would say, 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022“rk;gtj;jd;W khiy 4.30 kzpastpy; gs;spthry; mUfpy; vjphpAk; ,we;j m];fhh; epfhiuAk; ghh;j;Njd; vd;Wk; vjphp ahhplNkh fld; ngw;Ws;shh; vd;Wk; mij jpUg;gp Nfl;gjhfTk; vd; tprhuizapy; m.rh2 $wtpy;iy. rk;gtj;jd;W khiy 6.30 kzpf;F vjphp jd; kidtpia fhztpy;iy vd;W mdP]; ghj;jpkhtplk; nrhd;djhf mrh.2 mdP];ghj;jpkh vd; tprhuizapy; nrhy;ytpy;iy.”22. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, P.W.2 for the first time before the trial Court has stated the above incidents and the same can only be taken as an improvised version. 23. P.W.3-neighbor of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, she was treated as hostile. P.W.4-employer of the deceased has not stated anything in support of the prosecution. P.W.6 and P.W.7 alleged to be the neighbors of the deceased have only stated that they heard about the suicide committed by the deceased due to the disputes between the husband and wife. P.W.8-owner of the building would say that he had leased out the premise only to deceased and he does not know the accused.19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 202224. P.W.10-Revenue Divisional Officer, in his final report under Ex.P.7, has come to a decision that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment meted out by her husband but not due to the dowry harassment. During cross-examination of P.W.10, the trial Court itself posed a question as to how he came to a decision that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment by her husband, P.W.10 replied that the deceased's mother P.W.1 gave a statement that her first daughter P.W.2 had informed about the harassment caused by the accused and on the basis of the statement recorded, he decided so. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, even after recording such a statement from P.W.1, P.W.10 has not chosen to examine P.W.2. Moreover, the Panchayatars examined by P.W.10, uniformly stated that they were unaware as to whether there existed disputes between the deceased and the accused and that they were not aware behind the deceased's suicide. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, in the absence of any evidence or materials, P.W.10, on the basis of hearsay version of P.W.1, has recorded such a finding that the suicide was due to the harassment meted out by the accused and as such, 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022the evidence of P.W.10 and his report deserve no weightage. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2010 SC 512 has held as follows;“Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”26. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 1 MLJ (Crl) 235 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that the act of abetment by a 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC and to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the way in which investigating agencies treating the offence under Section 306 IPC in a casual manner and also warned the trial Courts that they should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges.27. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 12 SCC 595, “20. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do so. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.”28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court through catena of decisions has made the legal position clear that merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. It is pertinent to note that the real intention of a person to instigate another to commit suicide is the ultimate requirement so as to attract offence under Section 306 IPC. For the accused to be implicated in the wife's suicide, there must be an evident motive or intention on their part that led to her decision to take her own life, and this mental state should be substantiated by some form of evidence or incident. In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, even if evidence of P.W.2 is considered, it only shows harassment, which is not enough to establish the offence under Section 306 IPC. 29. P.W.1 in her evidence would admit specifically that the deceased was depressed by separation of her children. She would say,23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022“tpthfuj;J nra;jnghOJ mth;fSf;F gpwe;j ,uz;L Foe;ijfisAk; vd; kfs; jd;dplk; xg;gilf;FkhW Nfl;lhh; vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;. mjw;F mtuJ fzth; Foe;ijfis nfhLf;f kWj;J jhNd mioj;Jr;nrd;Wtpl;lhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;. Foe;ijfis gphpe;jjpypUe;Nj vd; kfs; Nrhfkhf ,Ue;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;.......vd; kfs; mtuJ ,uz;L gps;isfs; kPJk; ghrj;NjhL ,Ug;ghh; vd;why; rhpjhd;. M[h; vjphpia vd; kfs; jpUkzk; nra;j gpd;dh; mtuJ Foe;ijfis ghh;f;fKbahj #o;epiy Vw;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. gps;isfis ghh;f;fKbatpy;iy vd;W mt;tg;nghOJ vd; kfs; vd;dplk; $wp mOjpUf;fpwhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;.”30. Considering the above evidence of P.W.1, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, there is also possibility deceased committed suicide due to separation from her children. 31. On perusing the entire evidence available on record, there is no indication the accused had mens rea or intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution failed to prove instigation or abetment, but the learned trial Judge, without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and by relying on irrelevant aspects, convicted the accused 24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai in S.C.No.486 of 2016, dated 08.12.2021 is set aside. The appellant is not found guilty under Section 306 IPC and is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled and sureties, if any, shall be discharged. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. 14.11.2025NCC :yes/NoIndex :yes/NoInternet:yes/NocsmTo1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022K.MURALI SHANKAR ,J. csmPre-Delivery Judgment made inCrl.A.(MD)No.12 of 2022Dated : 14.11.202526/26