Dismissed

Poongamally @ Poongody v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Jul 2016CRL A/565/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal appeals, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by appellants convicted of murder and robbery. The court upheld the conviction despite minor errors in charge framing, affirming that circumstantial evidence regarding fingerprints and recovered stolen property established guilt beyond doubt.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed and conviction and sentence confirmed.

Poongamally @ Poongody Vs State Rep by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶7

Criminal Appeal Nos.565 and 698 of 2015

¶8

Poongamally @ Poongody (A2) .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.565/2015 W/o. Murugesan

¶9

Marimuthu (A1) .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.698/2015 S/O.V.Meyvel

¶10

Vs -

¶11

State rep by Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District. (Cr.No.1039 of 2011) .. Respondent in both appeals

¶12

Prayer:- Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.297 of 2012 dated 01.08.2015.

¶13

For Appellant in Crl.A.No.565/15: Mr.R.Ezhilarasan

¶14

For Appellant in Crl.A.No.698/15: Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja in both the appeals Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.)

¶20

The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.297 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302 and 392 I.P.C. and the second accused stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302 r/w 34 and 392 I.P.C. The trial Court convicted both the accused under all the charges and sentenced them as follows:

¶21

Rank of the Accused	Penal provision(s) under which convicted Sentence
A1	449 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
	302 of I.P.C. Imprisonment for life
	and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
	imprisonment for six months.
	392 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
	for five years and to pay a fine of
	Rs.1,000/- each in
	default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
A2	449 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
	for ten years and to
	pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo
	rigorous imprisonment for six months.
	302 r/w 34 of IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
	imprisonment for six months.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Rank of the	Penal provision(s)	under which Sentence
Accused	convicted
	392 of IPC	Rigorous	Imprisonment
		for five	years and to
		pay a	fine of
		Rs.1,000	/- each in
		default rigorous for six	to undergo imprisonment months.

¶24

Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.

¶25

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶26

2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Sampornam aged about 70 years. She was residing in her own house at Thangayur village in Salem district. Her husband was no more. P.W.1 is her son. He was residing in Sathya Nagar at Sangagiri with his wife and children. The deceased had yet another son by name Rajagopal, who was also residing in Sangagiri with his wife and children. After the demise of her husband, the deceased alone was residing at her house in Thangayur village. The said house was situated in the midst of a garden. The deceased was maintaining the garden. She used to always wear a gobi model gold chain, a pair of gold bangles, a ring with initial P.K., another ring with coral (pavalam), pair of ear studs with white, red and blue colour stones and a mattal all made of gold. She was using a cell phone bearing No.9659529195. She also used to always keep a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the bureau.

¶27

2.2. On 07.11.2011, the marriage of the daughter of Mr.Rajagopal was celebrated in Sangagiri. The deceased had gone for the said marriage at Sangagiri. On 12.11.2011, she returned to Thangayur village to her house. One Mr.Lakshmana Kumar her grandson (son of Mr.Rajagopal) dropped her at her house at Thangayur.

¶28

2.3. On 13.11.2011, around 07.20 p.m., P.W.4 a neighbour found the deceased lying dead inside the house with injuries. He immediately informed P.W.1 about the same. P.W.1 along with his wife and others rushed to the house of the deceased. He found that the deceased was dead and there were injuries on her body and he found the jewels mentioned above and the cell phone were all missing. The cash of Rs.10,000/- was also not found. Immediately, he went to Sankari Police Station and made a complaint at 09.30 a.m. on 13.11.2011.

¶29

2.4. P.W.16, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1039 of 2011 under Sections 457, 380 and 302 I.P.C. The details of the jewels stolen away were mentioned in detail by P.W.1 in the complaint. Since the assailants were not known, he mentioned so in the complaint. P.W.16 forwarded the complaint and the F.I.R. to the Court.

¶30

2.5. P.W.20 took up the case for investigation. Around 10.30 a.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 13.11.2011, P.W.20 went to the place of occurrence and prepared an

¶31

observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.19 and another witness. At his request, P.W.11 took photographs at the place of occurrence. P.W.20 had requested the fingerprint expert to visit the place occurrence. Accordingly, P.W.15 visited the place of occurrence and found three chance fingerprints from the bureau of the deceased. P.W.15 developed the same and took photographs. Then, P.W.20 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. He recovered a bloodstained pillow and other material objects from the place of occurrence under a mahazar. He forwarded the body for postmortem.

¶32

2.6. P.W.17 Dr.Angayarkanni conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 13.11.2011 at 04.20 p.m. She found the following injuries: “Injuries: (1) Dark reddish brown abrasion measuring 4x1cm with surrounding and underlying contusion measuring 6x4 cms noted over lower lip.

¶33

(2) Dark reddish brown abrasion over right side of nose 2x0.5 cms.

¶34

(3) Dark brown contusion noted over right side of the upper lip measuring 3x2x0.5 cms.

¶35

(4) Dark reddish brown abrasion over left zygoma measuring 1x0.25 cms with surrounding contusion measuring 4x3x0.5 cms.

¶36

(5) Dark reddish brown abrasion noted over right side of the forehead measuring 1x0.25 cms.

¶37

(6) Dark reddish brown abrasion noted over front of left knee measuring 1.5 x 1 cms.

¶38

O/D Head: Subscalpa contusion noted over right tempero parietal scalp measuring 10x8x0.5 cms with both temporal muscle contusion and over the cranial vault and dural membrane – intact. Brain – softened. Base of the skull – A 'Y' shaped fracture noted overr middle of left anterior carnival foses sub-arachnoid and subdural hemorrhages noted over both cerebral hemorrhage and base off the brain.

¶39

O/D Neck : Extra-vacation of blood noted over both Sterno, clcido mastoid, pretracheal and para tracheal muscle. Hyoid bone – intact.

¶40

O/D Thorax : No rib fracture. Heart – flabby, normal in size, chambers – empty, Coronaries, valves and great vessels patent; lungs – petechial hemorrhage noted over surface of both lungs.

¶41

O/D Abdomen: Stomach contained about 180 gms of partially digested food particles with no specific odour. Mucosa c/s congested, liver, spleen and kidneys c/s congested; intestines – distended with gas; bladder – empty; external genitalia – no injuries made out; pelvis and spinal column – intact.

¶42

Multiple superficial incisions made all over the body. No underlying contusions elsewhere.”

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

Ex.P15 is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P16 is the chemical analyst report and Ex.P17 is her final opinion. She gave opinion that the deceased had died due to the effects of the head injury. The death could have occurred 2 to 24 hours before the conduct of postmortem.

¶45

2.7. P.W.20 recovered the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same also to Court. During the course of investigation, on 25.11.2011, P.W.20 found that the cell phone instrument stolen away from the deceased was under use with the mobile No.9659128286. The investigation further revealed that the said mobile No. was used by the first accused. Therefore, on 26.11.2011, at 08.00 a.m. at Kunjanpalayam, in front of the house of the first accused, in the presence of P.W.19 and another witness, P.W.20 arrested the first accused. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed that he had hidden two gold rings, a cell phone and a TVS 50 motorcycle at his house. In pursuance of the same, he produced the cell phone (M.O.9) and M.Os.4 and 5 gold rings. P.W.20 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then, he recovered the TVS 50 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 39 V 9686 (vide M.O.10) from the first accused. Then, the first accused took the police and the witnesses to the house of the second accused and identified her.

¶46

2.8. The second accused, on arrest, while in custody, made a voluntary confession, in which, she disclosed that she had handed over the jewels to one Mr.Sundarajan and Mr.Suguraj. She further disclosed that she had hidden a pair of gold ear studs with “mattal” chain at her house. In pursuance of the same, she produced M.O.3 from her house. P.W.20 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then, she took the police and the witnesses to the house of P.W.7. From P.W.7, a gold chain weighing 8 ½ sovereign (M.O.1) was recovered. Then, the second accused took the police and the witnesses to the house of P.W.8 at 05.30 p.m. and identified P.W.8. P.W.8 produced two gold bangles (M.O.2). P.W.20 recovered the same under a mahazar. The jewels were later on identified by P.W.1 as that of the deceased. He forwarded the accused to Court and handed over the material objects also to the Court.

¶47

2.9. He obtained the sample fingerprints of both the accused by following the procedure and forwarded the same for comparison by P.W.15. P.W.15, on comparing the same, gave a report that they tallied with the chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence. On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against the accused.

¶48

2.10. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined, 33 documents and 10 material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, four documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D4. Ex.D1 is the thumb impression of the first accused found in the confession statement made by him to P.W.20. Ex.D2 is the left hand thumb impression of the first accused in the seizure mahazar. Ex.D3 is the left hand thumb impression of the first accused in yet another seizure mahazar. Ex.D4 are the xerox https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ copies of the statement of one Mr.Chinnasamy recorded under Section

¶49

164 Cr.P.C by P.W.20 (It is shocking that even the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been used as evidence by the defence). The defence of the accused was a total denial.

¶50

2.11. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. He has stated about the fact that he heard about the death of the deceased on 13.11.2011 at 07.20 a.m.. He has also stated about the missing of M.Os.1 to 5 and a cell phone from the deceased. He has identified M.Os.1 to 5 as the gold jewels stolen away from the deceased. P.W.2 is the yet another son of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased came to his house at Sangagiri to attend the marriage of his daughter on 06.11.2011 and then she returned to her house on 12.11.2011. He has further stated about the fact that on 13.11.2011, she came to know that the deceased had been done to death. He has also spoken about the missing of M.Os.1 to 5 and the cell phone belonging to the deceased. He has identified M.Os.1 to 5 as that of the deceased.

¶51

2.12. P.W.3 is a resident of Nadukanddan medu village. He was doing agriculture on the lands belonging to P.W.1 as a tenant. According to him, on 13.11.2011 around 06.45 a.m. he went to the field and found the house of the deceased not opened. Since the door was not bolted, he pushed the door and entered into the house. He found the deceased lying dead and the bureau was kept open and the things were lying on the floor. He has further stated that the deceased used to wear M.Os.1 to 5 always. He has further stated that M.Os.1 to 5 were missing and he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone. P.W.4 is a neighbour of the deceased. He has stated that P.W.3 informed him about the fact that the deceased was lying inside the house dead. He went to the house and found the deceased lying dead. P.W.5 has stated that he found the deceased lastly alive at around 06.30 p.m. on 12.11.2011. She has further stated that the deceased used to wear M.Os.1 to 5 always.

¶52

2.13. P.W.6 is a resident of Kunjampallayam village. According to her, she used to go for agriculture work in the field of her uncle at Pulaimpatti village for cutting sugarcane. In the same field, these two accused had come for some time. Thus, P.W.6 knew both the accused well. According to P.W.6 on 24.11.2011, the second accused came to her in the morning and showed the gold chain, a pair of ear studs and a mattal. She told P.W.6 that these jewels were given to her by her brother's wife for the purpose of pledging as she was in huge debts. The second accused had requested the help of P.W.6 to pledge the same. Accordingly, P.W.6 agreed to help. Then, P.W.6 took the second accused to P.W.7 Mr.Sundarajan and introduced the second accused. P.W.7 agreed to pledge the same in Indian Bank. Accordingly, the second accused handed over the gold chain, a pair of gold studs and mattal to P.W.7. P.W.7 in turn pledged the same in Indian Bank and gave Rs.95,000/- on 26.11.2011 to P.W.6. P.W.6 in turn handed over the said amount to the second accused. She has identified M.Os.1 and 3 as the said gold jewels.

¶53

2.14. P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has stated that P.W.6 came to him on 26.11.2011 at around 11.00 a.m. and gave gold chain and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wanted to pledge the same. He has further stated that he pledged the

¶54

same in the Indian Bank at Edapaddi and gave Rs.95,000/- to P.W.6.

¶55

2.15. P.W.8 has stated that he knew the accused 1 and 2 as they used to come to come with him for agriculture collie work. According to P.W.8, the second accused came to him on 15.11.2011 and wanted to pledge a pair of gold bangles. She told P.W.8 that the bangles belonged to her brother's wife. P.W.8 agreed to help A2. Accordingly, he pledged the bangles in the Sangagiri Co-operative Bank for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and then, he gave the said amount to the second accused. He has identified M.O.2 as the said bangles. He has also identified the receipt for pledging M.O.3. He has also produced the receipt for redeeming the said jewels from the bank. He has further stated that he returned the jewels to the Inspector of police. P.W.9 is the manager of Sangagiri Co-operative bank. According to him, on 15.11.2011, P.W.8 had pledged the bangles (M.O.2 series) for a sum of Rs.50,000/- then he redeemed the same on 26.11.2011. He has identified the receipt for the same.

¶56

2.16. P.W.10 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.11 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.12 the learned Magistrate has stated that she recorded the statements of few witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.13 has stated that he handed over the complaint and the F.I.R. to the learned Magistrate on 13.11.2011. P.W.14 has stated that he handed over dead body as directed by P.W.20 to the doctor for postmortem.

¶57

2.17. P.W.15 the fingerprint expert has stated that on 13.11.2011, he visited the place of occurrence and on a thorough search he lifted three chance fingerprints in the bureau of the house of the deceased where the dead body was lying. He has further stated that he enlarged the said chance fingerprints and took photographs and preserved the same. Later on, he received the fingerprints of the accused 1 and 2 and on comparison, according to him, it tallied with the chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence respectively.

¶58

2.18. P.W.16 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.17 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.18 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Single Digit Finger Print Bureau, Salem District. He has stated that he accompanied P.W.15 to the place of occurrence and that chance fingerprints were lifted from the place of occurrence. He has further stated that the fingerprints taken from the accused in the jail tallied with the chance fingerprints. P.W.19 the Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch and the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence. He has further stated about the arrest of both the accused, the confession statements made by them and the consequential recoveries of material objects. P.W.20 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.

¶59

When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ they did not choose to examine any witness. They marked Exs.D1 to D4

¶60

on their side. Their defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with these appeals.

¶61

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records, carefully.

¶62

This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. At the outset, we should say that it is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is bound to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any break, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. With this broad principle in mind, let us now go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution.

¶63

It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased attended the marriage of the daughter of P.W.2 at Sangagiri on 07.11.2011 and returned to her house at Thangayur village on 12.11.2011 in the evening. P.W.5 had seen the deceased lastly at her house around 06.30 p.m. on 12.11.2011. Thereafter, the deceased alone was at her house and she was wearing M.Os.1 to 5 the gold jewels. She was also in possession of the cell phone. P.W.3 had seen the deceased dead early in the morning around 06.45 a.m. on 13.11.2011. On his information, P.W.4 also went to the house and found the dead body. Then on the information of P.W.3, P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the house and found the deceased dead. We do not find any reason to reject this part of the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased had died sometime between 06.30 p.m. on 12.11.2011 and 06.45 a.m. on 13.11.2011.

¶64

P.W.17 Dr.Angayarkanni who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has found number of injuries on the body of the deceased and has opined that the deceased had died due to the effects of the head injuries and other injuries found on the body of the deceased. Thus, from the medical evidence, the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased had died in a violence.

¶65

Now the next question is as to who caused the death of the deceased. In order to prove that these accused were the perpetrators of the crime, the prosecution relies on the chance fingerprints which were lifted from the bureau at the house of the deceased. P.W.15 had visited the scene of crime on 13.11.2011, on the request made by P.W.20. P.W.18 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Single Digit Fingerprint Bureau, Salem district had also accompanied P.W.15. On a thorough examination, they found that there were three chance fingerprints on the bureau of the house where the deceased had been done to death. P.W.15 enlarged the same and took fingerprints of the same and preserved the same. After the arrest of the accused, the fingerprints of these two accused were taken by P.W.20 by following https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the procedure and forwarded the same to P.W.15. On comparison with

¶66

the chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence, he found that one of the chance fingerprint lifted from the bureau tallied with the fingerprint of the right ring finger of the second accused. Yet another chance fingerprint taken tallied with one of the inmates of the house. Thus, the prosecution has established that the fingerprint of the second accused was found in the bureau of the house of the deceased. Absolutely there is no explanation offered by the second accused as to how her fingerprint had gone to the bureau kept in the house of the deceased. Admittedly, there was no occasion for the second accused to visit the house of the deceased on any previous occasion. Thus, from this circumstance, the prosecution has proved that the second accused had entered into the house of the deceased.

¶67

The next circumstance is the recovery of M.O.9 cell phone. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the cell phone belonging to the deceased was found missing from the scene of occurrence. The mobile number of the deceased was 9659529195. P.W.20, during investigation, had come to know from out of the IMEI number that the cell phone was being used with cell phone number 9659128286. Since during investigation, according to P.W.20, it came to light that the said mobile number was used by the first accused, he arrested the first accused on 26.11.2011. M.O.9 the cell phone instrument was recovered from the possession of the first accused. But, unfortunately, M.O.9 the cell phone instrument has not been identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased. The IMEI number and other details of the instrument have not been proved by the prosecution by collecting necessary records from the cell phone service provider. Thus, the recovery of M.O.9 the cell phone instrument from the first accused could not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner.

¶68

It is in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and others that M.Os.1 to 5 were always worn by the deceased. Lastly, P.W.5 had seen the deceased wearing M.Os.1 to 5 but they were found missing from the dead body of the deceased. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has proved that the missing of the jewels (M.Os.1 to 5) from the body of the deceased and the death of the deceased had occurred in one and the same occurrence. On the arrest of the first accused on 26.11.2011, in the presence of P.W.19 and another witness, the first accused made a disclosure statement. In the said disclosure statement, he informed the place where he had hidden the two gold rings. In pursuance of the same, M.Os.4 and 5 were produced by him from the place of hideout. They have been identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased. The first accused has no explanation as to how he came to possess M.Os.4 and 5-the stolen properties. The natural presumption arising out of the same as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that he was the one who caused the death of the deceased and also robbed her of M.Os.4 and 5.

¶69

On being identified by the first accused, the second accused was arrested on the same day. The second accused in the presence of P.W.19 and another witness gave a voluntary disclosure statement. In the said statement, she informed that she had hidden a pair of gold ear studs. In pursuance of the same, she took the police and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ witnesses and produced M.O.3. M.O.3 has been identified by P.Ws.1 and

¶70

2 as that of the stolen properties. In the further disclosure statement made, she told that she had pledged a gold chain weighing 8 ½ sovereign in the bank through P.W.7 Mr.Sundarajan. Of course, Mr.Sundarajan has now turned hostile. But P.Ws.19 and 20 have stated that M.O.1 was recovered from P.W.7. P.W.7 has pledged the same in a bank. The second accused had handed over a pair of gold bangles to P.W.8 for the purpose of pledging. P.W.8 has admitted the same. He has pledged the same in Sangagiri Co-operative Bank. He redeemed and produced the same to the police and the document pertaining to the same has also been marked in evidence. Thus, from these evidences, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that M.Os.1 to 5 were in the possession of these accused 1 and 2 soon after the commission of the theft. They have no explanation at all to offer. Thus, as against both the accused, we are inclined to raise a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and that they have committed robbery of these jewels from the deceased and also caused her death. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable. But, the accused have not brought on record any material to rebut the said presumption. The said unrebuttable presumption coupled with the fingerprints of the second accused found on the bureau of the house of the deceased would all go to unerringly prove that these two accused were the perpetrators of the crime. The prosecution has clearly proved that these two accused had committed the murder of the deceased and had stolen away M.Os.1 to 5 and M.O.9. Thus, the trial Court was right in convicting them.

¶71

The trial Court has convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and the second accused under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. In our considered view, the charge against the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter and the second accused under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. is not correct. The trial Court ought to have framed the charge against both the accused under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Though there is such an error in the charge, that will not go to add any favour to the accused, as the accused had been put on notice that they had killed the deceased, they faced the trial knowing the nature of allegation made against them. Thus, on the ground of the above defect in the charge, we cannot acquit the accused.

¶72

In the result, we do not find any merit at all in these appeals. The appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.297 of 2012 dated 01.08.2015, stands confirmed.

Sd/Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶77

dixit/kk To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Sankari. 2. Do Thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 3. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. 4. Do Thro the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. 5. The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District. 6. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 7. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 8. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 9. The District Collector, Salem District. 10. The Director-General of Police, Chennai-4. +1 CC to M/S.R.Ezhilarasan, Advocate NO.38605 CO-MG ths : 22.10.2016 Crl.A.Nos.565 and 698 of 2015

¶78

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Poongamally @ Poongody v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poongamally @ Poongody v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheswari Vs State Rep by

Suresh @ P.Suresh Kumar Vs State Rep. by

Murugesan Vs State Rep. by

Udayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanthi Vs State through

Jagan @ Jayasuriya Vs the State Rep by