The prosecution in the instant case was lodged against
the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan, as well as, against
co-accused - I.T. Manian @ Manikanda, for the offences under
Sections 201, 302, 376 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The
aforesaid offences were allegedly committed by the accused with
reference to M. Jayalakshmi.
As per the prosecution version, M.Jayalakshmi went JUDGMENT missing at 7 a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer
the call of nature. Since she did not return, a missing person's
report was lodged on 7.9.2007 by her father P.Matheswaran at
Namakkam Kumarapalayam Police Station. It is also relevant to
mention, that in the first information report registered on
7.9.2007, the complainant had attached the photograph of M.
Jayalakshmi, and had also indicated for her identification, that
she was wearing a green colour jacket and saree. It was also
expressly mentioned, that she was wearing a nose-stud.
On 9.9.2007, a dead body of a female, was found by a
sweeper, Natarajan – PW4. Based on the recovery of the dead body,
another first information report came to be lodged. On 18.9.2007,
the parents of the deceased – Jayalakshmi, identified the clothing
and other artifacts, recovered with the dead body, as belonging to
their daughter. It is also relevant to indiacate, that the
aforesaid identification was affirmed by none other than the mother
of the deceased, Vedammal – PW2. The mother identified her
daughter from the photograph of the dead body.
The first needle of suspicion with reference to the
appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan emerged from the
statement of the investigating officer, Arumugam – PW20 dated
21.01.2008, affirming with Shanmugam – PW6, that the appellant had
been seen close to the place of occurrence. Consequent upon the
needle of suspicion having been pointed at the appellant, the
appellant allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to
R.V.Alagurajan – PW12. The aforesaid extra-judicial confession can
be extracted from his statement made by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, to JUDGMENT the police. A relevant portion thereof is being reproduced
hereunder:
“...My name is Manikandan. I am also addressed as
Keda Manian. Name of my wife is Durgadevi. I have
one son and a daughter. My native place is
Karanthai near Tanjavur. I have come to Bavani
many years back and settled here. I am engaged in
the profession of driving autorikshaw. From
1.9.2007 onwards, I am running share autorikshaw
bearing registration number T.N. 38 Q 1311
Annamalai of Krishnampalayam taking on hire basis
along with I.T. Mani. One Mubarak take the
collection from me every day and deposit with the
owner on two installments. Myself and I.T. Manian
have the habit enjoying the prostitutes who
approach bus stand area. On the last 8.9.07 when myself and I.T. Manian were operating share autorikshaw, one woman boarded the share autorikshaw from the bus stand. She did not get down till the last even after other passengers got down from the autorikshaw. When asked her name, she innocently told that her name as Jayalakshmi and she was from Komarapalayam. She also told that she did not have any money. When myself and Mani told her that we will take her to her village for which she agreed. On the way, myself and Mani planned to enjoy that woman. We came to share autorikshaw stand near bus stand and handed over the collection to Mubarak and left that place. When Mubarak enquired, Mani told that woman was his relative lady. Then on the way, I along went to a brancy shop in Nachippa street and consumed liquor. Then all three of us consumed food in the nearby Amutham mess. When we came out, it was slightly drizzling. We told that lady that we can leave after the rain stops and after passing through public toilet and took her to old municipal ward office. We engaged discussion with that lady and told her to compromise to our desire and asked her to lay with us. She refused and started to shout and then we took her to the land on the southern side. There, we tried to remove her blouse and saree, she shouted. That lady was a strong woman. We could not perform what we planned. I got annoyed and picked up a stick from nearby and inserted twice or thrice in her private part. Her shout mellowed down. Mani told that “let us leave”. From not to find further identification of the lady, I smashed her face with a stone. Mani also picked up another stone and threw it on the face ofthat woman. JUDGMENTWe stripped that woman's saree and petty coat and threw them out. We came to know that she was dead. We thought that the nose pin worn by her would disclose her identity. I removed the nose pin and kept it with myself. Then both of us came and picked up the share autorikshaw and left it in the workshop of the owner at Moolapattarai. On the next day, I came and asked Mani whether police made any enquiry with him for which Mani replied in negative. I thought that Mubarak may suspect us and indirectly told Mani, if any one say anything, let us slit the throat. There after, we went to the vacant plot near the municipality Kalyana Mandapam and put the nose pin removed from that woman in a plastic bag and concealed it there and then for the next 5 days, I did not run the autorikshaw. Therefore, I went to jail in connection with two case in Bavani. I came
to know that police were in search me suspecting
me. I was scarred and have to you and surrender
myself.”
After R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 had allegedly effectuated
the surrender of the accused – appellant before the Inspector of
Police, Erode town, he had also submitted a letter dated
21.01.2008, at the police station, which read as under:
“I, village administrative officer of 35B Erode
town was in my office today at about 12.30 O'Clock
in the afternoon with my assistant Manikkam, Keda
Manian alias Manikandan, resident of door number 47
Sreenivasapuram, Bavani appeared before and told
that he was involved in the murder of a woman on
the last 8th September near the Erode bus stand and
gave a statement and I am producing him and the
statement given by him to you for further action.”
Consequent upon the appellant, having been produced before the
Inspector of Police, the accused-appellant Kadamanian @ Manikandan
made a confessional statement on the same day, i.e., on 22.01.2008,
to the Inspector of Police, Erode, inter alia affirming as under:
“... That woman was a healthy and strong and she
pushed me and started shouting. We got annoyed as we could not do anything as we planned and
therefore, I picked up a stick which was lying
there and stabbed her private part three times with
that stick. Her shouts mellowed down and she
became semi conscious. I.T. Mani told to leave at
that stage. I told him that it would be dangerous
if we leave her like that and she would identify us
and her identity should not be known to any one and
therefore, I picked up the stone which was laying
nearby and threw it on her face and assaulted her.
Mani also picked up another stone and threw it on
her face. We came to know that she was dead. There
was no movement of her. We removed her saree, petty
coat, beads from her neck and kept it nearby and we
thought with the nose pic worn by her, her identity
would be known easily and there removed the nose
pin also. Then we came out. At that time, Shanmugam
who words as Kalasi saw us. We went to share
autorikshaw stand and picked up the share
authorikshaw and went to Moolapattaqrai and left
the auto rikshaw in the work shop. I.T. Mani left
for his house. On the next day, earlier morning, I
boarded a bus from Moolapatrai reached home. On
the next day after noon, I reached Erode share auto
bus stand, as if I know nothing met Mani and asked
him whether police made any enquiry. He answered in
negative. I told him that some information may
come out through Mubarak and if any information is
leaked out through some one, we should slit throat
of such person. However, we told him to assess the
situation. I told him that I will not come for
next five days and when I left there, I went to
vacant plot on the south of municipality
Kalyanamandapam and put the nose pin which I
removed from that woman in a plastic bag and buried
it near the transformer in that plot. Then I left
for home. I was careful that no one should suspect
me. In the meanwhile on one, there was a quarrel
between me and my wife as regard to eating of
mutton. Neighbor Gobi came and asked “why are you
shouting? How can we live here? And a dispute
arose between me and him and a case has been
registered against me and I was in custody for 13
days. When I came out on bail, I was arrested on a
Rowdy case and sent me to custody. When I came out
on bail, when I reached to share auto rikshaw stand
for running auto rikshaw, police however came to
know that myself and I.T.Mani have committed the
murder of that woman and the police is in search of
us. I thought, if police arrest me, they would
beat me and harass and therefore, surrendered before town JUDGMENTVAO today. He has sent me to you. At
that time, I have given this statement. If I am
taken, I would identify and produce the nose pin
where I have concealed it.”
It is the version of the prosecution, that based on the
afore-stated statement made by the appellant, a nose-stud was
recovered at the instance of the appellant on 22.01.2008. The fact,
that the same belong to the deceased – Jayalakshmi was confirmed by
various witnesses including PW2 – Vedammal, the mother of the
deceased. After recording the statements of the prosecution
witnesses, and also, the statement of the accused under Section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused were afforded an
opportunity to lead their evidence in defence. The accused availed
off the above opportunity, and thereafter, the trial Court rendered
its judgment dated 5.8.2009, convicting both the accused of the
offences levelled against them.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court
dated 5.8.2009, both the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.
528 of 2009, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras
(hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”). A Division Bench of
the High Court, accepted the appeal preferred by accused no.2 –
I.T. Manian @ Manikanda, and ordered his acquittal. The appeal
preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed. Although, the
sentences awarded by the trial Court, under various provisions of
the IPC, were by and large maintained, the sentence awarded to the
appellant (by the trial Court) under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code was reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Insofar as the
other sentences are concerned, the appellant was ordered to suffer
imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of JUDGMENT the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code to suffer life imprisonment, and for the offence
under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for three years.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
appellant raised various contentions. First and foremost , it was
sought to be canvassed, that there was no direct or ocular evidence
recorded at the behest of the prosecution, so as to render clear
and unambiguous culpability of the appellant. It was pointed out,
that the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court, as also,
by the High Court, was based only on circumstantial evidence. The
most relevant circumstantial evidence taken into consideration by
the High Court, according to learned counsel, was the
extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, to R.V. Alagurajan
– PW12 on 22.1.2008. The details of the aforesaid confessional
statement have already been recorded by us hereinabove. It was the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that R.V.
Alagurajan – PW12 was a stark stranger to the appellant, and
therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant, to have made a
confessional statement to him. It was submitted, that in any case,
keeping in mind the fact, that the deceased – Jayalakshmi had gone
missing on 6.9.2007, there was no justification for the accused –
appellant to have made a confessional statement months thereafter,
on 22.1.2008.
We would have ordinarily dealt with the instant submission by
itself. However, during the course of hearing, the same was sought
to be linked with another submission advanced at the hands of the JUDGMENT learned counsel for the appellant, namely, the recovery of the
nose-stud at the behest of the confessional statement made by the
accused -appellant to the Inspector Arumugam – PW20 on 22.1.2008.
It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant,
that the nose-stud recovered at the behest of the appellant,
weighted only 0.215 mg. It was pointed out, that there are
thousands of such nose-pins, and it was wholly improper for the
prosecution to rely on the trumped up recovery of a nose-pin. It
was submitted, that it was the case of the prosecution itself, that
the nose-pin in question was of the value of just about Rs.450/-.
The more vigorous submission with reference to the nose-pin was,
that the case of the prosecution, that the appellant herein, as
also, the co-accused had badly mutilated the face of the deceased –
Jayalakshmi, by crushing her face with stones, and as such, there
was no question of the recovery of the nose-pin form a mutilated
face. It was submitted, that if the accused had taken the nose-pin
after mutilating the face of the accused, the nose-pin ought to
have had fragments of skin, bone and blood. However, the nose-pin
recovered was clean and without any human tissue. It was also
submitted, that the nose-pin, which was allegedly recovered at the
instance of the appellant, was perfectly in-tact. In this behalf,
it was pointed out, that if the face of the deceased – Jayalakshmi
was crushed with stones, the nose-pin could not be expected to have
retained its original shape.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the two
submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
appellant. Insofar as the extra-judicial confession is concerned, JUDGMENT it is necessary to emphasize, that the non-recording of the
extra-judicial confession over a span of time, in the facts of the
present case, was inconsequential. We say so, because the
appellant was not a suspect till 21.1.2008. The appellant feared
his arrest with reference to the allegations pertaining to the
deceased – Jayalakshmi, only when the investigating officer,
Arumugam – PW20 affirmed with Shanmugam – PW6 on 21.01.2008, that
the appellant had been seen, close to the place of occurrence. It
is immediately thereafter, and on the immediately following day,
that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession to R.V.
Alagurajan – PW12.
It is also not a matter of dispute, that R.V. Alagurajan
– PW12 was the then Village Administrative Officer. It is obvious,
that the aforesaid extra-judicial confession was made as is
apparent from the statement of the appellant (extracted
hereinabove) to save himself from any adverse, physical handling by
the investigating authorities. Undoubtedly, R.V. Alagurajan –
PW12, the Village Administrative Officer, effectuated the aforesaid
object, by accompanying the appellant to the police station, and
ensuring his arrest at the hands of Arumugam – PW20.
Insofar as the submissions advanced at the hands of the
learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the nose-pin
are concerned, we are of the view, that none of the contentions
advanced on behalf of the appellant, can be accepted as a valid
justification, for exculpating the appellant from the charges
levelled against him. In this behalf, it would be relevant to
mention, that a missing person's report was registered by the JUDGMENT father of the deceased – P. Matheswaran, on 7.9.2007. In the
missing person's report, it was clearly mentioned, that the
deceased was wearing a nose-pin when she had gone missing. The
reason for indicating, that the deceased was wearing a nose-pin,
was with the clear purpose of aiding the identification of his
missing daughter – Jayalakshmi. This was obviously for the reason,
that the deceased – Jayalakshmi, was mentally unstable, and would
not have been in a position to express her identification, or the
identification of her parents, or the place of her residence, by
herself. In the recovery mahazar dated 22.1.2008, the recovered
nose-pin was depicted as being imbedded with four white stones. It
is therefore apparent, that the nose-pin worn by the deceased –
Jayalakshmi when she had gone missing, was not any ordinary
unidentifiable artifact, but was clearly different from the usual
nose-studs. Not only that, the photograph of the deceased
submitted along with the missing person's report dated 7.9.2007
shows a clear picture of the nose-pin, and therefore, to say that
the involvement of the accused on the basis of the nose-pin, was
improper, is not acceptable. Insofar as the absence of blood, skin
tissue and bone tissue on the nose-pin is concerned, it is clear to
us, that the submissions were made by the learned counsel, without
having viewed the photograph of the deceased, as is available on
the record of the trial Court. As already noticed hereinabove, the
nose-pin was worn by the deceased – Jayalakshmi, in the photograph
attached to the missing person's report dated 7.9.2007. The same
was missing from the photograph of the deceased, after her body
was recovered. The nose itself was not mutilated, and was in-tact. JUDGMENT No injury whatsoever was found on the nose, in the photograph of
the deceased. It was therefore wholly unjustified, for the learned
counsel for the appellant to have raised the submission, that the
absence of any human tissue on the nose-pin, would lead to the
inference, that the nose-pin in question, was not the one belonging
to the deceased. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
merit in the instant contentions, advanced on behalf of the
appellant.
Insofar as the veracity of the extra judicial confession
made by the appellant is concerned, it would be relevant to mention
that, learned counsel, during the course of hearing, placed
reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in Kala @ Chandrakala
vs. State through Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of
2010, decided on 12.08.2016), wherein this Court had observed as
under:
6.Firstly, we will examine whether the
extra-judicial confession which is a weak kind of
evidence, inspire the confidence. Susheela, P.W.4
has stated that Murugesan was married to the
appellant 14 years before the incident. She came
in search of his brother Murugesan to the house of
the deceased. Murugesan has told her on 12.5.2005
that appellant had threatened to kill him as he was
habitual of consuming alcohol. When she did not
receive any telephone call for 15 days from the
deceased, she went to his village. On enquiry she
was informed by the appellant that she, her nephew
Prakasam and father murdered the deceased and threw
his body under the bridge. Susheela, P.W.4
further stated that the appellant touched her legs
and stated that she would give properties of her
father to two children and that she should not
inform the police. Thereafter, P.W.4 went to the
police station on the same day and lodged the
complaint – Ex.P2. The police showed her the
photograph, shirt and slippers and asked her to
identify the same. She identified them to be of
her brother. She has further stated to have gone to police station after 5 days with photograph of
deceased. In the cross-examination, she has also
stated that she had signed the agreement for sale
of land executed by the accused. It is apparent
that accused was not having good relationship with
Susheela, PW.4. Making confession to such an
inimical person is most unlikely. When the witness
had gone in search of the deceased to the house of
the accused it is most unlikely that the
confessional statement would be made to her
readily. It is not that the appellant had gone to
the house of P.W.4 to make the confession. On the
other hand query was made by the daughter of the
deceased to Susheela, P.W.4 as to the whereabouts
of the deceased, meaning thereby the whereabouts of
the deceased were not known even to his daughter.
In case the deceased had been killed in the house,
perhaps the daughter would have known about the
offence having been committed by the accused.
7.In Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2012) 6 SCC 403, it has been observed that
extra-judicial confession is weak piece of
evidence. Before acting upon it the Court must
ensure that the same inspires confidence and it is
corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 259, it has been observed that extra-judicial
confession requires great deal of care and caution
before acceptance. There should be no suspicious
circumstances surrounding it. In Pakkirisamy v.
State of Tamil Nadu (1997) 8 SCC 158 it has been
observed that there has to be independent
corroboration for placing any reliance upon
extra-judicial confession. In Kavita v. State of
Tamil Nadu (1998) 6 SCC 108 it has been observed
that reliability of the same depends upon the
veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made.
Similar view has been expressed in State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, in which
this Court has further observed that witness must
be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the
accused. In Aloke nath Dutta v. State of West
Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230 it has been observed that
the main features of confession are required to be
verified. In Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan
(2010) 10 SCC 604 it has been observed that
extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by
some other material on record. In Rameshbhai
Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC
740 it has been observed that in the case of
retracted confession it is unsafe for the Court to
rely on it. In Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCCJUDGMENT644 this Court has followed the
decision in Sahadevan (supra).”
Based on the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, it was
submitted, that the extra-judicial confession being a weak piece
of evidence, should not have been relied upon, for determining the
culpability of the appellant.
Having given our thoughtful consideration on the above
contention, we are of the view, that the judgment relied upon by
learned counsel, is wholly inapplicable in the facts and
circumstances of this case, for two distinguishing features in the
present case, namely, that the extra judicial confession in the
instant case was made to the Village Administrative Officer R.V.
Alagurajan – PW12, who was totally unbiased and unconnected with
the controversy in hand. He could also not to be stated to be
inimical to the appellant. He is not shown to have any relationship
with either the complainant or the accused. Moreover, insofar as
the extra judicial confession made in the judgment relied upon by
the appellant is concerned, the same had been made by the accused,
to the sister of the deceased, which by itself made the extra
judicial confession extremely doubtful. We are therefore not
impressed with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant, based on the cited judgment.
The next contention advanced at the hands of the learned
counsel for the appellant was, on the third circumstantial evidence
taking into consideration, namely, the last seen evidence. For
establishing the above circumstance, the prosecution had relied JUDGMENT upon two witnesses, Shanmugam – PW6, and Mubarak – PW7. In the
statements recorded by the aforesaid two witnesses under Section
161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they had stated, that they had
seen the appellant and the co-accused in the company of the
deceased – Jayalakshmi. While recording their statements before
the trial Court, Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7 resiled from
the version indicated by them, to the investigating officer. It is
therefore apparent, that no last seen evidence, could be
substantiated by the prosecution, during the course of the trial
of the appellant. We are of the view, that the deposition at the
hands of Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7, can be described as a
matter of improper handling of the case, inasmuch as, both
Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7 had also recorded their
statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
affirming, that they had seen the appellant and the co-accused in
the company of the deceased – Jayalakshmi. However, since the
statement of the two prosecution witnesses recorded under Sections
161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not put to them,
after they were declared hostile, and were subjected to
cross-examination at the behest of the prosecution, we have no
alternative, but to overlook the last seen evidence sought to be
projected by the prosecution.
In the above view of the matter, it was the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no material
evidence available on the record of the case, to return a clear
finding of guilt, against the appellant. It was submitted, that the
circumstantial evidence projected through the prosecution JUDGMENT witnesses, did not complete the chain of circumstances, as would
establish the guilt of the appellant.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
appellant. As noticed hereinabove, there was a clear and categoric
extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to R.V. Alagurajan
– PW12 on 22.1.2008. During the course of recording his testimony,
R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was subjected to vigorous cross-examination.
His testimony however remained unshaken. Resultantly, the trial
Court, as also, the High Court, concluded that the extra-judicial
confession was genuine. We endorse the above determination at the
hands of the trial Court and the High Court. Consequent upon the
accused-appellant's extra-judicial confession, the appellant was
taken to the police station by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, and produced
before Inspector Arumugam – PW20. It is therefore apparent, that
the arrest of the appellant at the behest of R.V. Alagurajan –
PW12, has also been clearly established. The next chain in the
circumstantial evidence projected at the hands of the prosecution,
was the recovery of the nose-pin on 22.1.2008, based on the
statement of the appellant, to Inspector Arumugam – PW20. The
afore-stated nose-pin has been identified by the members of the
family of the deceased, as the one that was actually worn by the
deceased, when she went missing. Since the nose-pin was recovered
at the instance of the appellant, from a remote place under an
electric transformer, no one but the appellant could have been
aware of its location. Its recovery was therefore suffient, along
with the other evidence referred to above, to clearly implicate the JUDGMENT appellant. It is also necessary for us to mention, that there is
yet another aspect of the matter, which furthers the cause of the
prosecution, namely, the statement of M.Abdul Khader – PW8. In
this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the appellant
used to hire a share-autorikshaw, for earning his livelihood. The
aforesaid autorikshaw was hired from the garrage of Annamalai –
PW9. M.Abdul Khader – PW8 was engaged as an accountant at the
garrage of Annamalai – PW9. It was pointed out in the deposition
of M.Abdul Khader – PW8, that on a daily basis the
share-autorikshaw hired by the accused-appellant and the co-accused
used to be returned to the garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30
p.m to 9.30 p.m.. However, on the date of occurrence, i.e., the
relevant date when the alleged crime was committed, the
share-autorikshaw was returned on the following day, at 1.30 a.m.
The case of the prosecution is, that the autorikshaw was used by
the appellant and the co-accused in commission of the crime. It
was imperative for the appellant to have expressly indicated the
reasons and justification for not returning the autorikshaw to the
garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., on the
relevant date. Not having done so, by itself, is a cause of
suspicion, specially when there is other material evidence,
projected by the prosecution, to demonstrate the involvement of the
appellant, in the commission of the crime. We are of the view,
that the aforesaid evidence recorded by the prosecution was
sufficient, even in the absence of last seen evidence, to return a
finding of guilt against the appellant.
It is imperative for us to record, that in addition to JUDGMENT the afore-stated submissions advanced at the hands of the learned
counsel for the appellant, learned counsel had also contended, that
the co-accused was acquitted by the High Court, and that, his
acquittal was based on the same evidence, produced through the same
witnesses. It was contended, that it was improper and unjustified,
for the High Court, to have convicted the appellant, and acquitted
the co-accused, on the same evidence. We find no justification in
the instant contention advanced at the hands of the learned
counsel. We have already recorded hereinabove, that the extra
judicial confession made to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, was by the
appellant herein, and not by the co-accused. We have also recorded
hereinabove, that the recovery of the nose-pin found missing from
the nose of the deceased, was at the instance of the appellant, and
not at the hands of the co-accused. Therefore, the case of the
co-accused, was on a clearly different footing, and there was
sufficient justification for the High Court, to have taken a
different view,SW in the case of the co-accused.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
justification whatsoever to interfere with the conviction and
sentence awarded to the appellant, by the High Court.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2341/2010
KADMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T. and office report)
Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv.
Mr. Puneeth K.G., Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.
Ms. Nithya, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the Reportable
judgment, which is placed on the file. JUDGMENT
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS