AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Arumugham, J.—The sole accused before the trial court in S.C. No. 140/87 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Trichirappalli for the offence u/s 302 IPC who was found guilty and consequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the
impugned judgment dated 7.12.1987, is the Appellant, herein, challenging the correctness and legality of the same by filing this appeal.
The deceased Padma is the wife of the Appellant/accused and her brother is P.W.1 residing in Kosamettu Street in West Chinthamani in
Tiruchirappalli town. As his father died in harness while working as Assistant in the Revenue Department, the deceased was posted as a clerk on
compassionate grounds in the District Collectorate at Trichy. In 1979, the marriage between the deceased Padma and the Appellant/accused was
performed. At the time, the Appellant was working as a teacher in a Municipal School at Tiruchirappalli. Subsequent to the marriage, the brother
of the deceased Padma was given the job and the deceased Padma was ousted. As a result of her losing the job, bickerings arose between the
deceased Padma and the Appellant, leading to repeated quarrel by the Appellant with her. That apart, it is stated that the Appellant had insisted
the deceased to bring money from P.W.1 and P.W.1, who was employed as a grade I Police Constable in Railway Police, was helping his sister
to some extent. Then he educated his sister to become a pharmacist. In 1982, Padma joined as a Pharmacist in Government Hospital, Pudukottai.
On getting transfer to Pudukkottai as a teacher, the Appellant/accused lived with his family there. Within two months thereafter, Padma was
transferred to a nearby place called Ilupoor. However, she used to get Rs. 900/- per month as salary. Though the Appellant had received the
entire salary from his wife, it is stated, he refused to give any money to her. In this backdrop on 23.12.1982, P.W.1 Paulraj received a telegram
stating that Padma was in a precarious condition. P.W.1 along with his brother and mother had been to Pudukkottai, where, they were informed
that she had consumed sleeping tablets more in quantity but however got treatment in the hospital for two days and just then returned and if she
happened to die, the money due to her from the Government service would be utilised to educate the brother of the Appellant. But however,
having advised the Appellant, P.W.1 returned.
On 7.11.1986 the deceased Padma had been to the house of P.W.1. and stated that on the previous day, a ten rupee currency note was
missing from her bag and when she enquired as to who had taken the money, one Ramanathan the brother of the Appellant/accused abused her
and when she reported it to the Appellant, he had stated that she must be under the control of his brother and if not, she may quit the house and
that even so, Ramanathan poured kerosene upon her saree and tried to lit fire and that she had escaped and run away. Thus P.W.1 was informed
by the deceased about the conduct and activities of the Appellant and his brother. As was advised by P.W.1, Padma was staying in his house and
attending her work at Ilupoor. After a week, petitions were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, against the Appellant under Ex.P1
and Ex.P.2, Ex.P.19 is the carbon copy of the said document.
On 23.11.1986 at about 7 p.m., the Appellant had been to the house of P.W.1 and insisted Padma to come and live along with him. However,
Paulraj P.W.1 had advised him to arrange for a separate house, as the inmates of his house were ill-treating Padma, and to take the deceased. This
was supported by P.W.5, his maternal uncle also. Therefore, the Appellant went away. In the meanwhile, the Appellant became suspicious of his
wife''s fidelity with one Santhanakrishnan, who was a co-worker with the deceased Padma at the Government Hospital at Ilupoor. This suspicion
was based upon the fact that on a day at about 6 p.m. the Appellant happened to see the deceased Padma talking with P.W.7 near a Place Hotel
at Pudukkottai.
That being so, at or about 3:30 p.m. on 28.11.1986 the Appellant had been to the Government Hospital, Ilupoor and asked the deceased to
come with him. At about 7:30 p.m. on that day, Dr. Gnanasigamani examined as P.W.6 and working as a doctor in the hospital had seen the
Appellant and deceased Padma talking with each other. The Appellant took the deceased to her brother''s house on the night of that day. The
factum of the Appellant and the deceased going together through Nadu Street in Melachinthanami on the night of 28.11.1986 was seen by P.W.2
Sarasu and at about 10:15 p.m. it was witnessed by P.W.3 one Sengodan. At about 10:45 p.m. the Appellant and the deceased had been to the
house of Paulraj P.W.1. On the way to the house, the Appellant sustained an injury to his foot with a nail found on the road. On reaching the house
of P.W.1, the Appellant expressed his desire to take Padma along with him immediately. Since it was too late in the night, P.W.1 advised the
Appellant to sleep in the upstairs that night and he could take Padma to his house on the next day. For the injury sustained by the accused due to
nail, in order to give A.T.S injunction the deceased Padma took the medicine and syringe with needle and thus both went upstairs for stay during
the night.
At about 7 a.m. on 29.11.1986, as Padma had not come down, P.W.1 had been to the upstairs and found her lying on the one side with the cut
injuries upon her neck, as dead, Raising hue and cry, he came down and informed others and as a result of which, P.W.8 his wife by name
Vijayakumari and his neighbour P.W.4 and others went and saw the dead body. P.W.1 then went to a nearby factory. He gave a telephonic
message to Fort Police Station and went to Police station with a written report Ex.P.2 at about 8:15 a.m. and handed it over to the Sub Inspector
of Police P.W.19, which was registered by him in Fort Police Station Crime Number 1394 of 1986 u/s 302 IPC and the printed F.I.R. copy was
prepared, marked as Ex.P.32, P.W.19 sent the F.I.R. and connected papers to the Court and higher officials through P.W.15 Chinnathurai.
P.W.21, who was incharge of the Fort Police Station also at that time, by name Kalyanasundram, on getting the information of the registration of
the above case at about 9:30 a.m. took up the investigation.
By 7 a.m. on 29.11.1986 near a bus stop near a Mada Koil Street at Kumbakonam when P.W.10, the village Administrative Officer of
Dharasuram by name Srinivasan was standing, he saw the Appellant with blood stains on his shirt. When P.W.10 enquired about him, the
Appellant had confessed to him that on the previous night he had murdered his wife and that he came to Thanjavur and from there by boarding a
bus when he came to Kumbakonam as all the passengers were strangely looking at his shirt, he got down and wanted to surrender before the
Police and that he felt that he may be tortured by the Police if surrendered. The village Administrative Officer reduced into writing what was
narrated by the Appellant and that was marked as Ex.P.10. Added with his special report Ex.P.11 to the abovesaid effect, P.W.10 took the
Appellant to Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station and handed over Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 along with the Appellant to P.W.20, the Sub-Inspector of
Police by name Chandrasekaran, who on having verified that the occurrence of murder had happened within the limits of Fort Police Station took
the Appellant and Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 also to Trichirappalli.
Having taken up the investigation, P.W.21 Kalyanasundaram had been to the scene, of crime by 10 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar
Ex.P.8 in the presence of P.W.9 and another Panneer Selvam. The rough sketch showing the topography of the scene of crime prepared by him is
Ex.P.34. Between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on that day, he conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Padma in the presence of
Panchayatars and examined the witnesses and prepared the inquest Ex.P.35. Then, with a requisition to conduct autopsy under Ex.P.12 he
despatched the dead body through the Police constable P.W.16 to the Government Hospital. At about 1:15 p.m. on that day, in the scene of
crime, he recovered M.O.1 rexine bag, M.O.2 Thalikodi M.O.3 Gold ring, M.O.4 Series two ear Studs. M.O.5 Series two silver anklets, M.O.6
blood stained earth, M.O.7 sample earth, M.O.8 blood stained mat, M.O.9 series, two blood pillows, M.O.1O blood stained bed-sheet, M.O.11
a blood stained account note, M.O.12 Blood stained ever silver vessel, M.O.13 another blood stained ever silver small vessel, M.O.14 injunction
needles with syringe, M.O.15 the label affixed on the bottle, M.O.16 broken medicine bottle, M.O.17 wrist watch and the human hair found in the
hands of the deceased Padma and under the cover of Ex.P.9 attested by witnesses. At about 2 p.m. on that day, he arrested the
accused/Appellant and recovered M.O.19 blood stained pant and M.O.20 blood stained shirt under the cover of the mahazar Ex.P.23 attested by
P.W.13 and other witnesses. Then he recorded the statement voluntarily given by the Appellant and all of them were taken by the
Appellant/accused to a place on the south western portion of a bridge behind Ramba-Oorvasi theatre in Chinthamani and from the sand near a
constructed building, he produced M.O.18 aruval before the investigating officer at about 3:30 p.m. which was recovered under Ex.P.24 attested
by the same witnesses.
At about 3:50 p.m. on that day, Dr. Manjula P.W.11 on the receipt of the police requisition conducted autopsy over the corpse of Padma at the
Government Hospital and found the following injuries:
A lacerated wound in front of the next 12 to 15 cms in length and 5 to 6 cms in depth and 4cms in breath, running obliquely from the right side,
just below the ear lobe Muscles, Vessels, trachea were cut. Blood clots were seen over the wound.
A lacerated wound skin deep 3 cm X 2cm over the right mandibular region.
Two lacerated wounds 12cms each over the nape of the neck.
A lacerated wound 3cm in length over the right arm skin deep.
A lacerated wound 2cm in length over the left fore arm lateral aspect skin deep.
An abrasion over left index finger.
Linear cut injuries 3 in numbers over the abdomen above the umbilicus 10 to 12 cms in length X 1cm depth.
Internal organs:
Traches was cut. All other internal organs were found normal.
The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and injuries to vital organs and all the
injuries could have been caused by an aruval like M.O.18 M.O.18 was shown to her at the time of examination by the police. External injury
number one with the corresponding internal injury according to the doctor is necessarily fatal and as such death could have been instantaneous.
Ex.P.13 is the post mortem certificate.
Then the Inspector gave requisition Ex.P.31 to the Judicial Magistrate, Trichirappalli, to send the petition sent by Padma to the Superintendent
of Police and her casual leave applications Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 for examination by the handwriting expert. Accordingly, under the original of Ex.P.20
the covering letter of the Judicial Magistrate, the documents were subjected for handwriting expert''s opinion and consequently, the report of the
handwriting expert EX.P.21 and the reasoning sheet Ex.P.22 was received. Then all the case properties recovered in the case by the investigating
officer were subjected for chemical examination on the basis of the requisition Ex.P.27 He also filed Ex.P.26 before the learned Magistrate, to get
a portion of the hair on the head of the Appellant when he was produced in court and accordingly with his consent it was done by P.W.17 the
Head Constable and handed over to the learned Magistrate. M.O.s 6 to 12, 18 to 24 human hair recovered from the hands of the deceased
Padma and the hair cut from the head of the Appellant were all sent for chemical examination. Ex.P.29 is the report of the Chemical Examiner and
Ex.P.30 is the report of the serologist.
Having examined all the other witnesses and completed the investigation, P.W.22 laid the final report against the Appellant in the Court on
18.5.1987.
When the accused/Appellant was examined u/s 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned trial judge on the basis of the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he has denied his complicity in the crime in toto and the version of the prosecution as
a whole. He has filed a written statement, in which, he has stated and admitted that on the night of 28.11.1986, he along with his wife Padma had
been to the house of P.W.1 at about 10 p.m. on that day and that having arranged a separate house for living, he had been to the place of his wife
and invited her and that she wanted to inform it to her brother PW.1 and that therefore, he took her to the house of P.W.1 and that while they
were going through Chinthamani, he sustained an injury in his foot by a nail on the road and the pant he wore was stained with blood. He would
admit the purchase of the anti tetanus serum for being administered through syringe. After landing at Trichy, to return to Pudukkottai on the same
night, P.W.1 did not agree. At about 10:15 a.m. on that day he admitted further that he and his wife Padma had been to the upstairs in the house of
P.W.1. He would further state that when the A.T.S. injunction was administered by his wife, either by negligence or by mistake, much blood came
from his hand and his dress was stained with blood. Bearing the pain when he asked the deceased Padma whether they could go to Pudukkottai in
the early hours of the next day morning, she had told him that she believed that he would not seek a separate house and as a matter of fact, she had
no mind at all to go to Pudukkottai and live again with him, and that if he wanted, he could get divorce. While they were having children when the
accused asked her as to why she behaved in an indifferent manner, she had replied that she had consulted her lawyer and that she himself may file
a divorce petition and that even if the Appellant were to file a petition on the ground of immoral character, she would not object to it and that she
never had a liking for the Appellant and further stated that all the children were not born to him and that she was willing to live with Santhanam or
somebody else and therefore asked him to forget her. Frustrated at this terribly, at about 10:45 p.m. he left the house and started to Pudukkottai
by bus and on the next day at about 12 noon on 29.11.1986 when he was in his house, a Head Constable from Trichy came and took him to the
Fort Police Station and there he was put in the lock up and his signature obtained in many papers by force, He would claim that he saw Ex.P.16
only at Trichy Fort Police station, he pleaded that he was innocent and not guilty. He stated that he never went to Kumbakonam nor gave any
statement to P.W.10. He denied having gone to Kumbakonam Taluq Police Station and having produced and handed over M.O.18. According to
him, his shirt and pant was not recovered at Tiruchirapalli. He would admit that M.O.1 rexine bag belongs to his wife and that it was brought by
him when he returned to Tiruchi. Though he filed the written statement to the above effect, he did not choose to examine any witnesses on his
behalf.
Having recorded the oral evidence of 22 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 22 and marked 35 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P.35 with the 24 material objects
and the written statement filed on behalf of the Appellant/accused, and the rival contentions made on behalf of both, the learned trial judge, after an
elaborate consideration, has given his finding that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and
accordingly has found the accused/Appellant guilty and consequently convicted and sentenced him as noted supra. Aggrieved, the
Appellant/accused has come forward with this appeal.
We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pichai for the Appellant, who would contend firstly that the four
circumstances made available in the instant case, do not show circumstances per se adverse to the Appellant, involving him in all complicity and
secondly that there was no connecting link for this Appellant/accused together his complicity in the homicidal violence committed against his wife
on the fateful night and thirdly that the concept of extra-judicial confession claimed by prosecution is not only a very weak piece of evidence but
also highly suspicious in character and that therefore that aspect of the evidence cannot be taken into consideration and lastly, learned Senior
Counsel would contend that while comparing the size and shape of M.O.18, the so-called lethal and the nature of the injuries as found referred in
the weapon, with the breadth and measurements, post-mortem certificate, there is a conflicting view between the medical evidence and the
weapon, which would, reveal that the injuries found in the body of the victim Padma could not at all have been caused by M.O.18, and that
therefore, the prosecution must fail on this score alone.
In the context of the above four main contentions, we have heard the other side on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, who repelled the said
contentions by placing reliance on the documents and the oral evidence in its entirety with the substantial support of the impugned judgment
rendered by the learned trial. Judge.
In the context of the rival position above referred to, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded
in its mission of establishing the guilt and complicity of the accused beyond the realm of doubt and whether the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence is correct or not?
Regarding the first contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel, we have had the privilege of going through the entire adduced evidence in
this case. The very fact that at the time of the marriage of the deceased Padma with the Appellant/accused, he was working as a teacher in a
Municipal School and the deceased Padma was employed as a clerk on compassionate grounds due to the death of her father while in harness is
not in dispute or in controversy among the parties herein. Nor the fact that subsequently the brother of the deceased Padma was inducted in the
said place and she was ousted is disputed. As was claimed by the prosecution, she was educated in pharmacy and she got a job at Pudukottai.
However, she was shifted to a nearby place called Ilupoor and by residing at Pudukottai she was attending the work. The claim of the prosecution
in particular is that during such period though children were born to the Appellant and the deceased, the Appellant used to get all the earnings of
the deceased and refused to pay even a single pai and often troubled her to get money from P.W.1 and to some extent he was also helping her.
The above aspect also stands unrebutted, not even challenged. Even on the night of 28.11.1996, it is the admitted case, that the deceased and the
Appellant/accused came to the house of P.W.1 at Tiruchirapalli and where, they were asked to stay during night and go to their place on the next
day. Therefore, at about 10:45 p.m. on that day, P.W.1 his mother and his wife have seen the deceased and the Appellant/accused together as last
while they were going for sleeping during night in the upstairs of the house of P.W.1. In fact, the accused/Appellant has admittedly candidly the
above said aspect of the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would also go to show that while the accused/Appellant and the
deceased were going through the street on the evening of 28.11.1986 they had seen them together. It was the case of the Appellant that a nail on
the road pricked his foot and caused bleeding injury and it caused stains to his clothes. Thus P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, and the accused/Appellant himself, are
clear enough in establishing the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day of occurrence, in the upstairs of the house of P.W.1,
accused/Appellant alone was with the deceased Padma and none else was available along with them and that in the downstairs, P.W.1, the brother
of the deceased, his mother, his wife and children were all sleeping. The above circumstances brought out by the prosecution are so strong and
having every link, with the chain of events and continuity. It is not as if the husband and wife came to the house of P.W.1 on the fateful day when
they were happy but were with strained feelings among themselves. The second circumstance which the learned Senior Counsel wants us to
disbelieve in the case of the prosecution is on the ground that because on the night itself as the deceased had expressed her inability and
disinclination to go along with him he had left the house of P.W.1 and reached Pudukottai by night bus. This circumstance as pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel is the pivotal aspect of the whole case and for the same thing we believe that this is a crucial circumstance but however, we
are not inclined to attach any importance to the bone of contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the very reasoning that if the deceased and
the accused had been asked to take rest in the upstairs of the house of P.W.1 at about 10:45 p.m. and if the deceased Padma had taken the
injection syringe with the A.T.S medicine to administer the same to her husband the Appellant/accused, in order to avoid any formation of sepsis,
then, where was the bickerings between the husband and wife in order to have a portion of the hair of the accused in the hands of the deceased
Padma, as recovered under recovery mahazar and subjected to Forensic Examination with the sample hair taken from the Appellant which tallied,
as that of one and the same person. Moreover, if nothing had happened between the husband and wife or a wordy (sic) quarrel alone ensued,
which made the accused/Appellant to leave the house, then, he would have come down to the ground floor, waken up his brother-in-law, who is in
cordial terms and his mother in law and informed them and gone away. However, this man, the Appellant/accused had eluded away from the
house silently and with nobody''s knowledge. This clearly postulates the one and only conclusion that he did something wrong and that was the
reason why, he had disappeared, absconded himself without anybody''s knowledge on the fateful night. The mere fact and circumstances that the
hair of the head of the accused/Appellant to some extent was found in the hands of the deceased, clearly demonstrates the fact that the
accused/Appellant had perpetrated violence against the lady and that lady in such circumstance, while attempting to prevent it, caught hold the tuft
of the accused but however, the accused had overpowered her and dealt further blows and therefore his wife fell down to the ground and this man
had escaped. Considering this aspect of the case, we are totally unable to see any force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel with
regard to the circumstances above referred to.
The Chemical Examiner''s report and the Hand-writing Experts report clinchingly establish the fact and whole complicity of the
Appellant/accused that he alone had done away with the life of the deceased Padma and none else could have been responsible for this.
The third circumstance, which was canvassed before us by the learned Senior Counsel is the theory of giving the telegram Ex.P.25 and the
extra-judicial confession given, by the Appellant/accused to P.W.10 under Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11. Though an extra-judicial confession is a very
weak piece of evidence and courts will scan it with care and caution, yet, it has to be seen whether such extra-judicial confession has been
established by the prosecution or not according to the degree of proof required by the law. If we peruse the evidence of P.W.10 and the cross-
examination, we find no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.10. Therefore, we accept the evidence of P.W.10, which would mean, that
the extra-judicial confession statement has been duly and fully proved.
As suggested by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Pitchai, we sent for the weapon of offence M.O.18, aruval, said to have been involved and
recovered by the Investigating officer as produced by the accused and had a glimpse of the same. Consequently, we have meticulously gone
through the description of the injuries found noted by the doctor in the post mortem certificate. The length breadth ,the depth and the size of the
injuries found noted therein, would totally tally with the weapon of offence M.O.18 and as such, there cannot be any doubt that the injuries
referred to in the post mortem certificate could have been caused by M.O.18 who ever may be the assailant. Having pursued the post mortem
certificate with the oral evidence of P.W.11 the doctor, in the context on M.O.18, we are inclined to hold that no point in favour of the Appellant
could be built up on this score and the post mortem certificate coupled with the evidence of the doctor would tally and fall in line with the claim of
the prosecution, as inter connecting link to the circumstances, which would implicate the Appellant/accused alone in causing such homicidal death
to the deceased.
We have gone through the judgment of the trial court in extenso. The learned trial judge has discussed each and every aspect of the case very
aptly and elaborately and has arrived at a correct conclusion in rendering the impugned judgment.
The Supreme Court has laid down the following five cardinal principles applicable in a case, where it totally and wholly depends upon the
circumstantial evidence, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances ''must'' or ''should'' and not
''may'' be established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Keeping in view the ratio held by the Supreme Court in the above case law when the facts of the instant case are considered, we find that the
only hypothesis made available in this case clinchingly is that except the Appellant/accused none else could have committed the homicidal death of
the deceased Padma on the fateful night of 28.11.1986 and to this extent both prior to the occurrence and subsequent to the occurrence evidence
has been clearly demonstrated to show the chain of his activities and all links are intact, which prove only his complicity and there is no other
explanation and no other explanation is possible in the instant case. We are giving this finding irrespective of what the accused has stated in his
written explanation, which goes substantially in favour of the prosecution and thus, having considered the whole gamut of the case though this case
rests purely upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was able to prove the whole of the complicity of the accused/Appellant in causing the
homicidal death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubts, circumstantial evidence is considered to be much stronger than the oral and
documentary evidence for the reasoning that in so far as the oral evidence is concerned, the tongue for the reason of boneless can be twisted either
way but the monuments and the circumstances fail to do so and they cannot be twisted. It is for the said reasoning, as pointed out above, the
various circumstances clinchingly demonstrate the one and only human probability that the accused/Appellant alone has caused the death of the
deceased by homicidal violence and accordingly, we endorse our view with the finding and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge, which is
apt in the eye of law which cannot be minimize to, any extent.
The last contention, perhaps with fervent hope, which the learned Senior Counsel has raised before, us is that the incident could have occurred,
or in which the accused would have been involved, if at all, may be due to the grave and sudden provocation. This plea, perhaps was
demonstrated at the availability of the hairs of the accused/Appellant in the hands of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would
argue that there was grappling with each other resulted out of provocation, and the accused could have taken the weapon of offence and dealt with
her. With great respect, we are totally unable to accept this contention for no part of the case of the accused/Appellant, or iota of evidence, was
made available in this regard. The circumstance in which the tuft hair of the accused was found in the hands of the deceased, was also possible,
while the accused had tried to slay her away, in order to escape from the cuts the deceased would have caught hold of the tuft of the accused.
However, in the absence of any evidence or materials before us, we are totally at every difficulty to accept the above contention. Therefore we
reject the above contention for want of enough materials.
In the result, the appeal has no merits at all. Accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. For all the foregoing reasonings the appeal fails and
accordingly it is dismissed. The conviction sentence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in S.C. No. 140 of 1987
dated 7.12.1987 is confirmed and maintained. Bail bonds executed by the Appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.