CIVIL APPEAL 1 of 2013 on 21 December 2012

Relief

The Petitioners 2 & 3 accused viz., Karayan @ Thiyagu @Thiagarajan(A3) and Dharma @ Dharmaraj(A4) were directed to bereleased on bail as per order of this court dated 11.02.13 madein Crl.Mp.No.1/2013 in Crl.RC.No.149/13.

State rep. byInspector of Police,Ammapet Police Station,Salem.

Prayer:

Criminal Revision Case preferred under Section 397 and 401of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment dated 21.12.2012 passed bythe II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem inCrl.A.No.18 of 2012 confirming the conviction and sentencepassed by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem inS.C.No.354 of 2008 dated 14.02.2012.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferredchallenging the judgment dated 21.12.2012 passed by the IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.18 of2012 confirming the conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2012passed by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem inS.C.No.354 of 2008.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2008,around 12.15 noon, Kamaraj (PW2) was brutally attacked withknives near his house by Balaji/A1, Boopathi/A2, Karayan/A3 andDharma/A4, with the intention of causing death to him; onhearing the commotion, his brother Thirupathi (PW1) and his wifeDurga Devi (PW3), came out of the house and witnessed theattack; when Thirupathi (PW1) went to the rescue of his brother,he was also attacked by Balaji/A1; as people started gathering,the accused fled from the scene in a motorcycle; immediatelythereafter, Kamaraj (PW2) was rushed by his brotherThirupathi/PW1 to the Government Hospital, Salem for treatment;on information from the hospital, the police arrived there andobtained a written complaint (Ex.P1) from Thirupathi/PW1, basedon which, Karunanithi (PW14), Inspector of Police, registered acase in Crime No.554 of 2008 under Sections 342, 324 and 307 IPCagainst the four accused; Kamaraj (PW2) was examined byDr.Saravanan (PW9) and the Accident Register was marked asEx.P4; Kamaraj (PW2) was admitted as in-patient and was undertreatment; the police completed the investigation and filedFinal Report in P.R.C.No.58 of 2008 on 15.10.2008 before theJudicial Magistrate No.V, Salem against Balaji/A1, Boopathi/A2,Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 for the offences under Sections 307,341, 324 r/w 34 IPC.

3. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions ofSection 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case wascommitted to the Court of Session in S.C.No.354 of 2008 and wastried by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Sub Court),Salem. Balaji/A1 was charged under Section 307 IPC;Boopathi/A2, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 were charged under Section307 r/w 34 IPC and Boopathi/A2 was charged under Section 341IPC. When questioned, the petitioners pleaded ‘not guilty’.

4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses,marked 25 exhibits and 4 material objects. On behalf of thepetitioners, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked in the cross-examinationof the prosecution witnesses. When the petitioners werequestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminatingcircumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. Onbehalf of the petitioners, no witness was examined.

5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record,acquitted Boopathi/A2, but convicted and sentenced Balaji/A1,Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 as follows.

The convicted accused/petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.18 of 2012in the Court of Session and the same was dismissed on 21.12.2012by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem,aggrieved by which, Balaji/A1, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 havefiled the present revision petition invoking the revisionaljurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 IPC r/w 401 Cr.P.C.

6. Heard Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counselrepresenting Mr.Ezhil Nilavan, learned counsel on record for thepetitioners and Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the State.

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may benecessary to state here that, while exercising revisional powersunder Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., this Court is required tofind out, if there is any illegality or impropriety in thefindings of the trial Court and the appellate Court warrantinginterference and it is not open to this Court to exercise therevisional power as a second appellate forum. In this context,it is profitable to allude to the following paragraphs in thejudgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra VsJagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others, etc. [(2004)7 SCC659.]

“22.The revisional court is empowered to exerciseall the powers conferred on the appellate court byvirtue of the provisions contained in Section 401CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling theHigh Court to exercise all powers of an appellatecourt, if necessary, in aid of power ofsuperintendence or supervision as a part of power ofrevision conferred on the High Court or the SessionsCourt. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the HighCourt or Sessions Court, as the case may be, “for the purpose of satisfying itself orhimself as to the correctness, legality orpropriety of any finding, sentence or order,recorded or passed, and as to the regularityof any proceedings of such inferior court”.

It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the HighCourt or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellatepowers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of anappellate court on the revisional court is with theabove limited purpose. The provisions contained inSection 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do notindicate that the revisional power of the High Courtcan be exercised as a second appellate power.

(emphasis supplied)

23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer toand rely on the decision of this Court in Duli Chandv. Delhi Admn.[(1975) 4 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 663 :AIR 1975 SC 1960] in which it is observed thus: (SCCp. 651, para 5)

“The High Court in revision was exercisingsupervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and,therefore, it would have been justified in refusing toreappreciate the evidence for the purposes ofdetermining whether the concurrent finding of factreached by the learned Magistrate and the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so,the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably forthe purpose of satisfying itself that there wasevidence in support of the finding of fact reached bythe two subordinate courts and that the finding offact was not unreasonable or perverse.”

8. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel made thefollowing submissions:

a) The first complaint has been supressed by the police andsince the genuineness of the case has not been placed on record,the conviction and sentence stand vitiated. In support of thiscontention, he placed strong reliance on the following judgments:

iii.Ekambaram Vs. State [ 2016-2-LW(Crl)731]

b)Though Thirupathi/PW1 had implicated Boopathi/A2 in thecomplaint (Ex.P1), yet, the witnesses did not speak about theinvolvement of Boopathi/A2 and therefore, the evidence qua theother petitioners should be rejected.

c)The FIR in this case reached the Court only on 28.03.2018at 03.30 p.m. and hence, the version of the witnessesbecomes suspect.

d)That there was a previous case in Crime No.1280 of 2009against Thirupathi (PW1) and Kamaraj (PW2) and there was a casein Crime No.577 of 2010 against Kamaraj (PW2) have beenestablished by marking Ex.D1 and therefore, Thirupathi/PW1 andKamaraj/PW2 are rowdy elements and their evidence does notdeserve acceptance.

e)There was also a previous case against Kamaraj (PW2),which was registered on the complaint lodged by Balaji/A1, inwhich, Kamaraj (PW2) was remanded to custody and was released onbail. On account of this previous enmity, Kamaraj (PW2) hasfoisted the present case on Balaji/A1.

f)There are discrepancies with regard to the time ofoccurrence, in the evidence of Thirupathi (PW1), Kamaraj (PW2)and Durga Devi (PW3), inasmuch as Thirupathi (PW1) has statedthat the incident took place at 12.15 noon, Kamaraj(P.W.2) has stated the time as 11.30 a.m and Durga Devi (PW3)has stated that the incident took place at 01.00 p.m.

g)Thirupathi (PW1) has told Dr.Saravanan (PW9) that fiveknown persons had attacked him, whereas, Kamaraj (PW2) hasstated that four known persons had attacked him.

9. Per contra, Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned GovernmentAdvocate (Crl. Side) refuted the contentions put forth by thelearned counsel for the petitioners.10.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rivalsubmissions.

11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Karayan/A3died on 27.10.2016 and a copy of the Death Certificate has beenproduced. His legal heirs have not come forward to prosecutethis petition. This is recorded.

12. Before adverting to deal with the arguments formulated byMr.K.S.Rajagopalan, it may not be out of place to discuss theevidence of the two injured witnesses, viz., Thirupathi (PW1)and Kamaraj (PW2).

13. Kamaraj (PW2), has stated in his examination-in-chiefthat, he is an autorickshaw driver by profession; Thirupathi(PW1) is his brother; he knows the petitioners; prior to theincident, there was a quarrel between him and Balaji/A1, inwhich, he assaulted Balaji/A1; in that case, he was arrested andwas released on bail; on 27.03.2008, around 11.30 a.m., he cameout of his house and was standing; at that time, Balaji/A1 camewith Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4; Balaji/A1 attacked him with aknife that is normally used for cutting palmyra fruit; when theattack was aimed at his neck, he defended it with his hand; atthat time, his index finger got severed and fell down; his ringfinger got cut and was hanging; he suffered cut injuries on hisleft foreleg, right hand and right hip; on hearing his cry forhelp, his brother (Thirupathi/PW1) came to his rescue; he wastaken in an autorickshaw to the Government Hospital, Salem,where, he was under treatment for one day and thereafter, he wasreferred to the Government Hospital in Chennai for furthertreatment; he was in bed as in-patient at Chennai for 3½ months.

14. In the cross-examination, Kamaraj (PW2), has stated thatthe petitioners are known to him and they are also autorickshawdrivers; he is a share-autorickshaw driver; he has admitted thattwo months prior to the incident, on the complaint given byBalaji/A1 that he had robbed him, a case was registered and hewas arrested; he pleaded guilty in that case and was finedRs.1,000/-. He has further explained that he pleaded guiltybecause, he had to undergo medical treatment for the injuriessustained by him in the present attack and he was advised not tocontest the case; the certified copy of the order in that casewas marked as Ex.D2. He has admitted that he would consumeliquor, but, denied that he would pick up quarrel with everyoneafter drinking. It was suggested to him that, he had picked up aquarrel near Kumaragiri area and the local people assaulted himand dropped him near his house, which suggestion he denied. Itwas suggested to him that, since he was arrested on thecomplaint given by Balaji/A1, he has falsely implicatedBalaji/A1, which suggestion, he denied.

15. Thirupathi (PW1), brother of Kamaraj (PW2), in hisexamination-in-chief, has stated that he is an autorickshawdriver and he knows the petitioners; on 27.03.2009, around 12.15noon, his younger brother Kamaraj (PW2) went outside the houseand within 10 minutes, he heard commotion outside; therefore, hewent outside and looked; he saw Balaji/A1, Karayan/A3 andDharma/A4, vehemently attacking Kamaraj (PW2); Balaji/A1 washaving a knife with which, he attacked; he was not able toexactly notice, in which parts of the body they attacked; but,Balaji/A1 attacked him on his left shoulder; on seeing thepeople gathering, the petitioners, who came in a motorcycledropped the motorcycle and ran away; he rushed his brother tothe Government Hospital, Salem; police came to the hospital andobtained the complaint (Ex.P1); after two days, his brother wasshifted to Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai for treatment.

16. In the cross-examination, Thirupathi (PW1), has statedthat he handed over the blood stained clothes to the police; hedescribed the weapons held by Balaji/A2, Karayan/A3 andDharma/A4; he knows the petitioners well and his brother alsoknows them. He conceded that the petitioners did not want toattack him at the first instance, but, they attacked himbecause, he went to the rescue of his brother. He also admittedthat there are several criminal cases pending against him andhis brother. Ultimately, it was suggested to him that hisbrother Kamaraj (PW2) had picked up quarrel near Kumaragiri areaand sustained injuries in that quarrel and on account ofprevious motive, a case has been foisted on the petitioners,which suggestion, he denied.

17. Durga Devi (PW3), W/o.Thirupathi (PW1), has stated in herchief-examination that, Kamaraj (PW2) is her brother-in-law; sheknows the petitioners; on 27.11.2008, around one o' clock,Kamaraj (PW2) had his lunch and went out of the house; aroundthat time, she heard the shout of her brother-in-law; herhusband Thirupathi (PW1) went out; she followed him; there, shesaw Balaji/A1 and Karayan/A3 belabouring Kamaraj (PW2) with aknife; when Kamaraj (PW2) defended the attack with his hand, hisright thumb got severed and his left hand middle finger also gotcut; he also suffered several cuts over the body; thepetitioners ran away; her husband (Kamaraj/PW2) took Thirupathi(PW1) by an autorickshaw to the police station and to thehospital.

18. In the cross-examination, Durga Devi (PW3), has statedthat, around 01.20 p.m., the police came to the place of

Arguments

occurrence and enquired her; she stated that at the time ofincident, her husband was having his meal and on hearing thesound, they went out of the house; she saw five personsattacking Kamaraj (PW2); she knows Balaji/A1, Karayan/A3 andDharma/A4. She admitted that a few days prior to the incident,on the complaint given by Balaji/A2, Kamaraj (PW2) was arrestedand he came out on bail. In the latter part of her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not actually witnessthe attack, but, when she went, she saw the petitioners withknives and so, no one dare to go near them. She has furtherstated in the cross-examination that she was carrying her seven-month-old infant and in that tense situation, she was not ableto properly see, in which parts of the body Thirupathi (PW1) wasattacked. It was suggested to her that, there are several casespending against Thirupathi (PW1) and he picked up quarrel atKumaragiri area, on account of which, he was attacked by someoneand that, on account of previous motive, he has falselyimplicated the petitioners, which suggestion, she denied.

19. The fact remains that immediately after the incident,Dr.Saravanan (PW9), has examined Kamaraj (PW2) at 01.00 p.m. on27.03.2008. At the time of examination, Dr.Saravanan (PW9), inhis evidence as well in the Accident Register copy (Ex.P4), hasstated that the patient was conscious and he has noted thefollowing injuries :

“1. Left hand middle finger lost 2. Left hand ring finger severed 3. Parietal region 0.5 cm contusion on the left portion ofthe head 4. 3x2x0.5 cm laceration on the right hand 5. 0.5x0.5 cm laceration in the index finger 6. 1x1 cm laceration on the upper lip 7. 8x3x2 cm laceration in left leg 8. 2x1x1 cm laceration in the right knee"He has stated that there was profuse bleeding and issuedAccident Register copy (Ex.P4). He has further stated thatlaceration can be caused by a weapon like knife and the injuriesfound on the leg, hip and neck could have been caused by a sharpinstrument and there was an overwriting in the date portion,after the words, "assault by four known persons". He has statedthat the injuries noted by him, could have occurred 4 to 4½hours prior to his examination.

20. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, contendedthat Thirupathi (PW1) has stated in the cross-examination thatthe police examined him between 12.00 and 1.00 noon, whereas,Karunanithi (PW14), the Inspector of Police, has stated that thecomplaint was received at 14.30 hours. He built up this

argument by further contending that Thirupathi (PW1) has statedthat the incident took place at 12.15 p.m.; Kamaraj (PW2) hasstated that the incident took place at 11.30 p.m. and Durga Devi(PW3) has stated that the incident took place at 01.00 p.m. Healso contended that Durga Devi (PW3) has stated that the policecame to the place of occurrence around 01.30 p.m. Hesummed up his submissions by urging that all these cumulativelyshow that there was an earlier complaint, which has beensuppressed by the police, in order to falsely implicate thepetitioners.

21. The fact remains that Kamaraj (PW2) was examined byDr.Saravanan (PW9) on 27.08.2008 at 01.00 p.m. Therefore, theincident must have taken place before 01.00 p.m. Dr.Saravanan(PW9) has noted eight injuries on the body of Kamaraj (PW2),which have been set out above. Kamaraj (PW2) was admitted as in-patient because, he was bleeding profusely, due to loss of twofingers and injury on his head. He was shifted to StanleyHospital, Chennai for further treatment from GovernmentHospital, Salem. The defence have not refuted these aspects.The defence have not even suggested to any of the witnesses thata first complaint was given and after suppressing that, a secondcomplaint has been lodged.

22. Thirupathi (PW1) and Durga Devi (PW3) have stated thatafter meal, Kamaraj (PW2) went outside the house and wasattacked. The incident had taken place on 27.03.2008 and thewitnesses were examined before the trial Court on 22.06.2011,which is four years after the incident. Therefore, the witnesscannot be expected to give the timings accurately. One cannotexpect the witness to consult their watch, while witnessing agory incident of this nature and remember the timings for thepurpose of accurately deposing before a Court of law at a laterpoint of time. Witnesses are neither robots nor recordingmachines. In Selvi (supra) relied upon by Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan,the Supreme Court has given the following finding :

“ ... Thereafter, the ordinary procedure is tosend the report to the Police Station to be registeredat the Police Station by the Officer Incharge of thePolice Station. But, indeed, we have never comeacross a case where the Station House Officer hastaken the First Information Report Book with him tothe scene of occurrence. According to the suggestionof defence the original First Information Report whichwas registered was something altogether different fromwhat has now been put forward as the First InformationReport and that the present report is one which hasbeen substituted in the place of another which was destroyed. To substantiate their suggestion thedefence requested the Sessions Judge to direct theSub-Inspector to produce the First Information ReportBook in the Court so that the counterfoils might beexamined. The Sub-Inspector was unable to produce therelevant F.I.R. book in Court notwithstanding thedirections of the Court. The F.I.R. book, ifproduced, would have contained the necessarycounterfoils corresponding to the F.I.R. produced inCourt. ..."

On facts, the Supreme Court found that the police failed toproduce the FIR book, despite the order of the Court and inthose circumstances, acquitted the appellants therein.

23. In R.Baskar (supra) relied upon by Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan,the Division Bench has noted as follows:

“16-A. Yet another serious disturbing feature inthis case is that the possibility of the suppressionof the earlier report cannot be ruled out. PW1admitted in his cross-examination that the PoliceStation is only 10 feet away from the scene and assuch, on hearing the hue and cry, the Police couldhave very well arrived at the scene immediately.Accordingly, PW1 also admitted that on hearing the hueand cry, the Police arrived at the scene. PW2categorically admitted in his cross-examination thaton hearing the hue and cry nearly 40 to 50 personsarrived at the scene and Police Constables came fromthe nearby Police Station and chased the accused. ..."

In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Division Bench heldthat there was suppression of the genuineness of the incidentand gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

24. In Manoj Sreevalsan (supra) relied upon byMr.K.S.Rajagopalan, this Court found that the complainanttherein had given an earlier complaint to All Women PoliceStation, Ponneri, which complaint was suppressed. In thatcontext, this Court returned a finding that there was asuppression by the prosecution and acquitted the appellanttherein for the offence under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

25. It is trite that the principle of stare decisis cannot beblindly applied in criminal cases because, every criminal caseturns out on its own facts and no judgment can be applied as

Euclid’s theorem.

26. The contention of Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan that, there was areference to Boopathi/A2 in the FIR, yet, Thirupathi (PW1) andKamaraj (PW2) did not speak a word about him and therefore,their evidence qua the present petitioners should be rejected,cannot be countenanced. In the complaint (Ex.P1) given byThirupathi (PW1), there is a reference to Boopathi/A2 and hisovert acts, but, Thirupathi (PW1) did not speak anything aboutBoopathi/A2 in the chief-examination. This may amount to anomission. In certain cases, an omission can be considered ascontradiction under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Acontradiction in the evidence vis-a-vis the complaint can beestablished only via Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

27. At the time of trial, learned counsel for Boopathi/A2 oras a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the other accusedwould not have dared to ask Thirupathi (PW1), as to why, he hasomitted to speak about Boopathi/A2 in the chief-examination. Nocriminal trial lawyer worth his salt, would venture to pose sucha suicidal question. They would be happy that the witness hadomitted to implicate one of them and wisely, they would haveleft it to rest. That is the exact reason, why the trial Courthas acquitted Boopathi/A2. Therefore, for the failure ofThirupathi (PW1) and Kamaraj (PW2) to implicate Boopathi/A2 intheir evidence, this Court cannot reject their evidence qua thepetitioners herein. That apart, the principle falsus in unofalsus in omnibus cannot be invoked in our jurisprudence.

28. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel contended thatThirupathi (PW1) had told Dr.Saravanan (PW9), who examined himthat he was attacked by five persons, but, only four personswere involved and hence, his evidence should be rejected.

29. The statement of Thirupathi (PW1) to the doctor is aprevious statement and if it is to be contradicted, the defenceshould have resorted to the procedure under Section 145 of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872. That having not been done, this Courtcannot treat this as a contradiction and disbelieve histestimony. That apart, in P.Babu and Others Vs. State of AndhraPradesh [(1994) 1 SCC 388], the Supreme Court while discussingthe evidentiary value of entries in the Injury Certificate, heldas under :

“6. ... It is a matter of common knowledge thatsuch entry in the injury certificate does not

necessarily amount to a statement. At that stage thedoctor was required to fill up that column in a normalmanner and it was not the duty of the doctor toenquire from the injured patient about the actualassailants and that the inquiry would be confined asto how he received the injuries namely the weaponsused etc. ...”

Further, in B.Badriah and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1995 Supp (1) SCC 262], the Supreme Court has held that thecasual way of filling up the column in the medical certificate,does not, in any manner, amount to recording the statement ofthe injured witness.

30. As regards motive, it is a double edged weapon. In acase involving circumstantial evidence, motive assumessignificance. In this case, we have the direct evidence ofKamaraj (PW2), the injured, who survived the attack. Kamaraj(PW2), in the chief-examination, has stated that on thecomplaint given by Balaji/A1, he was arrested by the police in arobbery case and he came out on bail, a few days prior to theincident. This has not been denied by the defence. This factwas not unearthed by the defence in the cross-examination ofKamaraj (PW2). In other words, Kamaraj (PW2) himself has statedthis in the chief-examination. To say that Kamaraj (PW2)sustained such serious injuries, somewhere in Kumaragiri andthereafter, foisted a case on Balaji/A1 and his group, appearsincredible.

31. As regards the alleged delay in the FIR reaching theCourt, it is seen that Karunanithi (PW14) registered the FIR at14.30 hrs on 27.03.2008. Karunanithi (PW14) has stated that hesent the complaint and the FIR to the Magistrate. There isabsolutely no cross-examination of Karunanithi (PW14) withregard to the alleged delay in sending the FIR to the Court. Inthe absence of any cross-examination on this aspect, this Courtcannot return a finding that there was delay in the FIR reachingthe Court and that had prejudiced the case of the accused. 32.As regards the two cases in Crime No.1280 of 2009 andCrime No.577 of 2010 against Thirupathi (PW1) and Kamaraj (PW2),they cannot be termed as cases previous to the presentoccurrence because, the occurrence in this case was on27.03.2008, whereas the aforesaid two cases are of the year 2009and 2010.

Conclusion

33. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity in theappreciation of evidence by the two Courts below, warrantinginterference. That apart, the sentence imposed by the Courtsbelow also cannot be said to be excessive.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as beingdevoid of merits and the judgment of conviction and sentencepassed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.18 of 2012 dated21.12.2012 and the trial Court in S.C.No.354 of 2008 dated14.02.2012 are confirmed. The trial Court is directed to takesteps to secure the petitioners, who are alive and commit themto prison for undergoing the remaining period of sentence, ifany.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

gyaTo1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.2.The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem.3.The Judicial Magistrate V,Salem.4.The Inspector of Police,Ammapet Police Station,Salem.5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Copy to:The Section Officer,Criminal Section,High Court, Madras.+1cc to Mr.P.Ezhil Nilavan, Advocate sr.no.7432 CRL.R.C.No.149 of 2013mr(co)nr 05/03/2019