In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Date : 31..03..2008
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. MURUGESAN
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. PERIYAKARUPPIAH
Criminal Appeal No: 1009 of 2005
1. Krishnan @ Ramasamy
2. Rajendiran @ Chinnu
3. Ramalingam ... Appellants
-vs-
State,
rep. by Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Township Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondent
.. .. ..
Criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr. P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2005 by the Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore, made in S.C. No: 61 of 2005.
For appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar,
Senior Counsel for
Mr. A. Sasidaran
For respondent : Mr. V.R.Balasubramanian
Additional Public Prosecutor.
.. .. ..
J U D G M E N T
V. Periyakaruppiah, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and conviction passed against the accused 1 to 3 finding them guilty of the offence under Sections 364 and 201 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and also convicting them for an offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appellants namely accused 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal. In the said judgment, the trial Court, while convicting the accused 1 to 3, had held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case of the prosecution against A.4 and A.5 and consequently acquitted A.4 and A.5 of the charges levelled against them.
2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the material evidence is as follows :-
" (i) Seven months prior to 04.04.2004 the deceased Manikandan expressed his love to one Rajeswari, the daughter of Krishnan @ Ramasamy (A.1) and Selvam (A.5). Thereupon, there was commotion, where upon there was enmity between the accused on the one side and the deceased Manikandan on the other side and therefore, the deceased was driven out of the Neyveli area. Subsequently, on 04.04.2004 at Velludaiyanpattu village, Panguni Uthiram Kaavadi Festival was celebrated. The deceased visited his native village Vadakkumelur nearby Velludaiyanpattu for that festival. On 04.04.2004 at 06.30 p.m. the deceased was talking with his friends behind the school at Vadakkumelur. At that time, A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5 came there and took the deceased Manikandan to the place near Mariamman Temple where the accused attacked him. Later, he took him in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No: TN-31 Y 2376 and abducted him under the pretext that the deceased was being taken to the police station. On the way, accused purchased brandy and at 6.15 p.m. in the cashew thope belonging to one Vijeyendiran the deceased was taken out of the autorickshaw and the auto was sent. Vijeyendiran told the accused not to assemble there. Therefore, A.1, A.2 and A.3 took the deceased to the road leading to Vadakkumelur and under a margosa tree Manikandan was compelled to drink brandy and at 12.00 midnight A.1 and A.2 strangulated the deceased by putting his towel around his neck and done him to death and thereafter, all the three accused put the dead body into a borewell.
(ii) On 10.04.2004, based on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased Manikandan a complaint was registered for an offence under Section 365 I.P.C. On 13.04.2004, the police arrested A.3 Ramasamy, who gave a voluntary confession statement, in pursuance of which A.3 took the police to the borewell where they had hidden the dead body. A bad smell was emanating from the borewell.
(iii) Upon the identification of the borewell by A.3, with the help of Kurinjipadi fire service personnel, police started the process of taking out the dead body from the borewell. The dead body, which was taken out from the borewell after the fire service personnel strived hard for about 15 hours, was identified by P.Ws. 1 to 5 to be that of Manikandan. The body was sent to Panruti Government Hospital where inquest was conducted by P.W.13 on 14.03.2004 at 6.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars. The inquest report is Ex.P.17. The dead body was subjected to post mortem at the Panruti Government Hospital. Ex.P.9 is the post mortem certificate and P.10 is the opinion given by the Doctor who conducted post mortem. The investigating officer prepared the Observation Mahazar and other sketches. P.W.13 also took steps to send the viscera for chemical examination. The hyoid bone was also sent for chemical examination through the concerned Court and the expert's report was obtained. P.W.13 came to know that the other accused surrendered themselves before Court. After concluding the enquiry, P.W.13 laid charge sheet against the accused before Court on 26.05.2004 for the offence under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 I.P.C."
3. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. Neither any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was produced on their behalf.
4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses, exhibited P.1 to P.22 and marked M.Os. 1 to 4 to prove its case. After considering all the materials records, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case only against A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Sections 364 and 201 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and for an offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and acquitted A.4 and A.5 of the charges levelled against them. Challenging their conviction and sentence, A.1 to A.3 are before this Court in this appeal.
5. Now, we have to see whether the contention of the appellants as raised in the grounds of appeal are acceptable and the appellants (A.1 to A.3) are also entitled for acquittal.
6. Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Mr.A.Sasidharan, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit in his arguments that the learned Sessions Judge had accepted the interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses and had come to the conclusion of convicting the appellants (A.1 to A.3) which is apparently not sustainable in law. He would submit that the prosecution case rests only upon circumstancial evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove such circumstances without any breakage of link, but however, the trial Court, accepting the last seen theory and the confession of A.3, had arrived at a conclusion that the case projected by the prosecution had formed a complete chain of circumstances and had convicted the appellants as stated above, which is against the norms fixed by the Apex Court of our country. He had also submitted in his argument that the appellants (A.1 to A.3) also stand in the same footing as that of A.4 and A.5, however, when A.4 and A.5 were given the benefit of doubt, such benefit had not been extended to A.1 to A.3 by the trial Court, which is also not correct. He had also drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 who spoke about the deceased being last seen in the company of A.1 to A.4 and submit that their evidence is full of contradictions and the material particulars spoken to by them are also in dire contradictions with the complaint given by P.W.1, but still it is strange to note that even in such a situation the trial Court had convicted A.1 to A.3 while acquitting A.4 and A.5.
7. The learned Senior counsel would also submit in his argument that the evidence of P.W.1 did not disclose the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence where the deceased was last seen in the company of A.1 to A.4, however, the trial Court had mistook the said contradiction as a minor contradiction which is not sustainable in law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, by the arguments of the learned senior counsel, that the important person, who is said to have been present at the place where the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused, namely the Village Headman by name Super Subburayan was not examined and this is fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, he would contend in his argument that the delay in giving the complaint by P.W.1 was also inordinate and the same was not explained by P.W.1 properly and that the trial Court had not gone into all these aspects, and hence, the judgment under challenge is not one which is passed in accordance with law. It is further argued that the body of the deceased was seized after a long period, in a decomposed stage, and the identity of the body was not condusive but the prosecution witnesses have identified the dead body as that of the deceased Manikandan. It is also the stand of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants who were convicted for the offence under Section 364 and 302 I.P.C., even otherwise would not have been convicted for an offence under Section 364 I.P.C. since the autorickshaw driver P.W.8 had not supported the case of the prosecution.
8. While summarising his arguments, the learned senior counsel would add that the prosecution had failed in proving the identity of the body of the deceased as that of Manikandan as well as in connecting the links of other circumstancial evidence except the last seen theory and the non examination of the independent witness would go a long way to show that the case of the prosecution was not established and that the appellants (A.1 to A.3) also ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, he has submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against A.1 to A.3 be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
9. In reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, would submit in his argument that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants with the available circumstancial evidence collected during the investigation as that is the only way to prove such a case where the dead body was found after ten days. He would further submit in his argument that the confession statement of A.3 lead to the recovery of the dead body of Manikandan at the place where it was allegedly disposed of by the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would bring to our notice that the body was recovered by the police from a borewell with the help of fire personnel after much difficulty and the body was identified to be that of Manikandan by his closest relatives namely P.Ws. 1 to 4. According to him, the last seen theory spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 4 coupled with the recovery of body pursuant to the confession statement of A.3 would certainly fasten the criminal liability on A.1 to A.3 and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified. He would also submit that in a case where the dead body was found after ten days the availability of direct evidence is very remote, however, the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused and it would be sufficient for the Court to come to a conclusion that the accused are presumably guilty of the offence alleged against them.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking us through the evidence of P.W.1, would submit that her evidence would show that A.1 had been giving evasive answers when she asked about the whereabouts of her son, after she had lastly seen her son with them. Relying on the decision reported in 1998 S.C.C. (Criminal) 391 (Sudama Roy @ Jadav and another vs. State of West Bengal) he would submit that the fact that A.1 had been giving evasive answers to P.W.1 is enough to prove his guilt. According to P.W.1 on one occasion when she asked A.1 about her son, he said that her son Manikandan would come in one or two days and on the other occasion, he informed P.W.1 that he had given a sum of Rs.100/- to Manikandan and that Manikandan had gone to Kerala. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that such evasive and contradictory answers given by A.1 to P.W.1 would go a long way to show that he had involved himself in the commission of the crime along with A.2 and A.3 and thus, he is liable to be convicted as per the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also brought to the notice of the Court the evidence of P.W.10, the Post Mortem Doctor who had corroborated the evidence of other witnesses when she stated in her evidence that the death of the person, whose decomposed body was produced before her, would have occurred 10 or 12 days prior to autopsy. In other words, her evidence would corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 who spoke about the fact that the deceased was seen lastly in the company of A.1 to A.4 ten days prior to the date when the body was recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that the over all evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses would complete the chain of circumstances against the appellants and hence, the appeal preferred by A.1 to A.3 may be dismissed.
12. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by either side. The case of the prosecution was that on 04.04.2004, when the deceased Manikandan, son of P.W.1, came to his village from Kerala for attending the Panguni Uthiram Festival at their village, the 1st accused - who was enimically disposed of against him on account of the fact that Manikandan had offered flowers to his daughter - along with A.2 to A.4, had taken Manikandan to one Mariamman Temple where they had beat him and Manikandan became unconscious. When the act of the accused in beating Manikandan was questioned by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others including the Village headman, under the guise of handing him over to Police station, the accused had taken Manikandan in an autorickshaw M.O.4 belonging to P.W.8, to some other place and caused his death. Thereafter, the accused had managed to dump the dead body of Manikandan in a borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters.
13. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that her son Manikandan was said to have given a flower to the daughter of A.1 and since, A.1 was very much annoyed with Manikandan, she sent her son to Kerala for employment in order to save him from the accused; after some time, Manikandan had come to his native village for celebrating Panguni Uthiram Festival and when he was talking to his friends on one evening, he was taken by A.1 to A.4 for questioning and on hearing the same P.W.1 went to the said place namely Mariamman Temple where A.1 to A.4 had been examining Manikandan. She saw her son being beaten up by the accused and at that time her son was in an unconscious state. She went and brought the Village Headman. Thereafter, Manikandan was taken from the said place in an autorickshaw by the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, who is none other than the sister of P.W.1. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants would be that the presence of P.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.P.1-complaint and therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon by the prosecution and accordingly, the last seen theory may not be true. The complaint was given by P.W.1 on 10.04.2004, which is produced as Ex.P.1. Admittedly, the complaint is preferred six days after the date when P.W.1 had lastly seen her son near the Mariamman Temple. The explanation offered by P.W.1 would be that she had approached A.1 on the next day itself i.e. On 05.04.2004 and enquired about her son. For that A.1 had told her that her son would return in two days. After the lapse of two days, when she approached A.1 again he had told her that he had paid a sum of Rs.100/- to her son Manikandan and sent him to Kerala. Not satisfied with the answer given by A.1, when P.W.1 informed A.1 that she is going to give a complaint against him, A.1 told her that she may do so and thereafter only P.W.1 had given the complaint on 10.04.2004 and thus there was a gap of six days from the date when P.W.1 saw her son and the date on which she preferred the complaint Ex.P.1 before the police. There is no dispute that P.W.1 has given the complaint on 10.04.2004 for tracing her missing son Manikandan whom she saw in the company of the accused. It is settled law that the complaint, whenever it is registered as First Information Report, is the first step to launch the investigation to be set in motion. It may not be necessary that all the particulars should be furnished in the complaint itself since the F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia. The first information report, which makes the law to be set in motion, would only lead to further investigation. The investigation may unearth more particulars and details than what is given in the F.I.R. Therefore, mere non-mentioning of the presence of P.W.2 in Ex.P.1 cannot be held fatal to the whole case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence adduced by P.W.2 can be taken as corroborative evidence to the evidence of P.W.1.
14. No doubt in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, they had also supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is pertinent to note here that P.Ws.3 and 4 are independent witnesses who had spoken about the fact that the deceased Manikandan was enquired by the accused near Mariamman temple and the village headman told the accused that, "Let the police examine Manikandan, if any case is pending against him". They had also spoken to the effect that they had seen the deceased Manikandan's body being recovered from the borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters. The said evidence of P.W.3 had also stood the test of cross examination as nothing was elicited in favour of the appellant in the cross examination of P.W.3. P.W.4 had spoken about the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused at Mariamman Temple on 04.04.2004; he saw the accused beating up the deceased; he tried to interfere and at that time A.1 had told him that it is not his business and he cannot interfere and thereafter, A.1 to A.3 did not heed to the words of the Village headman to hand over Manikandan to police; A.2 going to fetch an autorickshaw; A.1 to A.3 taking the deceased in the said autorickshaw and thereafter, he heard that Manikandan had died. This clear evidence of P.W.4 not only corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 but also supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 about the accused beating up Manikandan near Mariamman temple and then taking him in an autorickshaw. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and cannot be believed in respect of the last seen theory.
15. It is also not necessary that the village headman namely Super Subburayan should have been examined for the purpose of proving the last seen theory when especially the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 are quite clear regarding the accused beating up Manikandan near the Mariamman temple. We have already seen that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 was not shaked in any way by the cross examination of the defence and, therefore, the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 3 and 4, while independently corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, would also clinchingly show that the son of P.W.1 namely Manikandan was lastly seen in the company of A.1 to A.3, who had taken him under the guise of questioning to Mariamman temple; they had beat him there and later, under the pretext of handing over Manikandan to police, they had taken him in an autorickshaw brought by A.2. Thus, the prosecution had proved the last seen theory.
16. The next point to be considered is about the identity of the dead body of the deceased as that of Manikandan, which was questioned by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants. It is seen from the records that A.3 was arrested on 13.04.2004 and pursuant to his arrest he had given a voluntary confession statement which lead to the discovery of the place where the accused had disposed of the body of Manikandan. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A.3 is marked as Ex.P.3. P.W.7 was examined to prove the confession and also the preparation of Observation Mahazar of the place where the borewell was located. The dead body of Manikandan was said to have been taken out from the borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters on 13.04.2004 with the help of 10 firemen under the leadership of the Station House Officer, Anbazhagan. The said fact was spoken to by P.W.11, who is one of the fireman. According to his evidence, the dead body was taken out from the borewell with much difficulties and they had obtained special apparatus from Neyveli Lignite Corporation and with the help of such special apparatus they had taken out the body of Manikandan from the depth of 200 feet from the borewell. His evidence would also go to show that for about 15 hours the fire service personnel fought to take out the body, after which the dead body was handed over to the police for further investigation. The relevant documents were also produced as Exs.P.11 and P.12. His evidence would also show that Mr.Anbazhagan the Station House Officer was also dead and, therefore, he could not be examined.
17. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 11, we could see that the dead body was pulled out from the borewell near Indira Nagar on the identification of the place by A.3. The place chosen by the accused to dump the body after commission of the offence itself speaks volumes not only about the intention of the accused to commit the murder but also about the genuinity in the prosecution's case as such a place, namely a borewell, to dump a dead body is beyond the imagination of anyone and this particular place would not have been identified by the police except with the assistance and identification by A.3. In other words, such a place cannot be identifed by any other person who did not commit the offence. In Ex.P.3, the confession given by A.3, he had confessed that the dead body of Manikandan was put inside the iron borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters by him along with A.1 and A.2. Apart from this, P.Ws. 1 to 4 had also spoken to the effect that they were taken by the police to identify the dead body and accordingly they found that the decomposed body recovered from the borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters was that of Manikandan.
18. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel was to the effect that the evidence of P.W. 10 would show that the body was recovered in a highly decomposed stage and no cloth, except a white towel around the neck of the body, was found in the body whereas the prosecution witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 2 had spoken to the effect that a belt, a watch and a green towel around the neck was seized from the dead body of the deceased, thus there is contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the dead body recovered from the borewell was that of Manikandan cannot be a true version. A belt, a green towel and a watch were said to be recovered from the body of the deceased Manikandan and were produced as M.Os. 1 to 3 respectively. P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified those material objects as found in the said body. P.W. 10 is the post mortem Doctor who had obviously seen the body after the material objects stated above have been recovered from the dead body and hence, when P.W.10 saw the dead body no cloth or any other material object were available in the dead body. In fact, nothing was suggested to P.W. 10 as to the presence of M.Os. 1 to 3 in the dead body at the time of autopsy by the defence. Taking all the above said circumstances into account, we are of the considered view that the identification of the borewell by A.3 through his confession, in the peculiar circumstance of the case and the subsequent recovery of the dead body from 200 feet deep borewell, the identification of the body by P.Ws. 1 to 4 to be that of Manikandan, are all amply sufficient to prove the guilt of A.3 in the commission of the crime. The discripencies, even if any available, regarding the presence of M.Os. 1 to 3 in the dead body may not be fatal one as to the identity of the body to be that of Manikandan.
19. Nextly, we have to see whether the recovery of the body on the identification of the place of disposal by A.3 through his confession would also fasten the criminal liability against A.1 and A.2 on the strength of the last seen theory spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 4. No confession was given by A.1 and A.2 since they were not taken into police custody after they surrendered themselves to judicial custody. Can the confession given by A.3 referring to the names A.1 and A.2, who helped him to dispose of the body of the deceased Manikandan inside the iron borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters, be put against A.1 and A.2 based on the other links for completing the circumstancial evidence is a question to be considered now. It is settled law that the confession of the co-accused cannot be put against the other accused in order to decide their criminal liability. Therefore, we have to see whether any other link is available to connect A.2 and A.3 in the crime. Even though the autorickshaw owner had turned hostile, it has come out in the evidence of P.W.4 that A.1 to A.3 had taken Manikandan in an autorickshaw belonging to P.W.8.
20. According to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the evasive answers given by A.1 to the enquiries made by P.W.1 as to the whereabouts of her son would certainly incriminate A.1 in the kidnapping and the murder of Manikandan as per the dictum rendered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1998 S.C.C. (Crl.) 391 (Sudama Roy alias Jadav and another vs. State of West Bengal). The relevant paragraph reads thus,
" 6. The deceased was last seen in the house of Appellants 1 and 3. The appellants gave false and evasive replies to PW 1, the mother of the deceased when she repeatedly inquired about the whereabouts of her daughter. They have concocted evidence to falsely show that the deceased was alive in August 1983. The spot where body was buried was pointed out by Accused 1. Looking to the circumstancial evidence which has been discussed in detail by the Sessions Court as also by the High Court, both the courts have convicted these two appellants under Section 302 as also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not see any reason to take a different view."
In the said judgment the Supreme Court had held that the last seen theory of the deceased and the evasive reply given by the accused in the said case when the mother of the deceased enquired about the fate of her daughter would be sufficient circumstantial evidence for ending in conviction as arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court. We could see that the facts of the present case would squarely apply to the facts of the said case discussed in the judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, the evasive replies given by A.1 in this case as spoken to by P.W.1 would be sufficient to support the last seen theory to form a chain of circumstances against A.1.
21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also draw the attention of the Court that the evidence of P.W.4 was to the effect that on 04.04.2004 the accused A.1 to A.3 had beat Manikandan near Mariamman temple, under the guise of enquiring him and thereafter, they took him to the house of A.2 in an autorickshaw brought by A.2. The accused did not deny this evidence by putting any suggestion to P.W.4 in cross. In other words, there was no cross examination by the defence on this aspect. Therefore, the part played by A.2 in the commission of the offence, namely bringing the autorickshaw M.O.4 to take Manikandan to his house stands establsihed. This evidence available against A.2 would be sufficient for holding A.2 guilty of committing the offence alleged against him, along with A.1 and A.3. Thus, the chain of circumstancial evidence as against A.2, namely, he, along with A.1 and A.3, was lastly seen near Mariamman temple questioning and beating Manikandan; later Manikandan was taken by all the three in an autorickshaw to A.2's house and thereafter, the body of Manikandan was recovered from the borewell identified by A.3 through his confession, is a complete chain with all the links connected to each other. These chain of circumstances are not available for A.4 and A.5 in order to fasten the criminal liability on them. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel to the effect that A.1 to A.3 also stand in the same footing as that of A.4 and A.5 and so they are also entitled to an order of acquittal, cannot be sustained.
22. On a overall view of the evidence placed before Court and as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the circumstancial evidence as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 4 as to the last seen theory was supported by other material evidence and that the links of the circumstantial evidence is complete as against A.3 by the confession given by him; the evasive replies given by A.1 had made it complete as against A.1 and the act of A.2 in bringing the autorickshaw and taking Manikandan to his house had made the chain of circumstancial evidence complete as against A.2 and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against A.1 to A.3 for an offence under Sections 364 and 201 read with 34 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is perfectly justifiable and we see no reason to interfere with the said judgment. Accordingly, the appeal deserves no merit and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Session Judge. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused and commit them to prison to serve the rest of the sentence.
Index : Yes / No ( D.M.J. ) ( V.P.K.J. )
Website : Yes / No 31..03..2008
gp
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Neyveli.
2. - do - through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Cuddalore.
3. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Township Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6. The District Collector,
Cuddalore.
7. The Director General of Police,
Chennai 600 004.
8. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore.
