Page 1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.567 OF 2012

Hakkim …Appellant VERSUS

State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police …Respondent

With  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.568 OF 2012

Sarfudheen & Anr. …Appellants VERSUS

State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police …Respondent

&

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1410 OF 2011

Samsudheen …Appellant VERSUS

State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

1. In  these  appeals  preferred  by  Accused  Nos.1  to  4  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4’), the Appellants  

herein  seek to challenge the judgment passed by the Division  

Bench of  the High Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras.  The Division  

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       1 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 2

Bench by the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2008 in Criminal  

Appeal No.359 of  2005 confirmed the conviction and sentence  

imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment dated  

06.04.2005 in SC No.240 of 2003.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution  

was that PW-1 by name Alim George was a resident of Kaliba  

Sahib Street in Nagur Town. He was living with his three wives by  

name  Fatima,  Sayeeda  (deceased)  and  Sameema  and  their  

mothers, his daughter Jeni, his son Jaffer Hussain, Rahana sister  

of  his  deceased  wife  Sayeeda,  one  of  his  friends  by  name  

Goodnameshah PW-2 and his nephew Niyaz Ahmad PW-3 were  

also living along with him.  PW-1 stated to have worked as Imam  

in some mosque in Koothanallur before setting up his residence  

in  Nagur.  He  also  stated  to  have  worked  as  Principal  in  the  

Melapalayam Arabic college. He has also worked as Imam in a  

mosque in Malaysia apart from serving as a teacher in a Madrasa  

at Udumalaipet.  His guru was stated to be one Sayed Ali Sahib in  

Nagur.

3. There were certain allegations against PW-1 to the effect  

that  he  was  indulging  in  certain  nefarious  activities,  namely,  

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       2 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 3

exploiting  women  folk  by  drugging  them  and  also  thereafter  

blackmailing them. At the instance of PW-23, a report appeared  

about the nefarious activities in a magazine called “Yevukanai”.  

According  to  the  prosecution,  the  said  report  provoked  the  

accused  along  with  three  others,  two  of  whom  were  also  

prosecuted  before  the  trial  Court  which  resulted  in  their  

involvement in the present crime alleged against them.  

4. It is stated that when PW-1 along with the other residents  

was in his  house on 26.10.1996 at 4.00 p.m.,  the door of  the  

house  was  pushed  open  by  the  Appellants-accused  holding  

knives in their hands, they entered the house and asked for PW-1  

by calling who was ‘George’ and one of the accused placed a  

knife  on  the  neck  of  PW-3  while  another  accused  pulled  the  

deceased Sayeeda by her hair and yet another person advanced  

towards PW-1 while another accused extorted to ‘kill him’. When  

the accused attempted to inflict injuries on PW-1, he warded off  

the same which resulted in an injury to his forehand. At that point  

of  time while  deceased Sayeeda raised an alarm, the accused  

persons caught hold of her hands and legs and inflicted multiple  

injuries on her. When PW-4, the mother of the deceased came for  

her rescue, she was inflicted with stab injuries in which process  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       3 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 4

her right hand ring finger got severed. While three of the accused  

held the deceased Sayeeda, A-1 stated to have cut her throat  

which resulted in her instantaneous death. When PWs-2 and 3  

tried to intervene, they were also inflicted with knife injuries.  

5. In view of the milieu created, people living in and around  

the place of residence of PW-1, gathered around and caught hold  

of all the four accused-Appellants. The deceased and the injured  

were shifted to the hospital where PW-1’s statement Exhibit P-5  

was recorded which was registered as Crime No.464 of 1996 at  

6.30 p.m. at Nagur Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 452,  

324, 307 and 302, IPC and the express report was forwarded to  

the  Judicial  Magistrate  at  Nagapattinam and  was  delivered  at  

00.10 hours.  

6. The  accused,  who  were  held  by  the  neighbours,  were  

beaten  by  the  public  and  were  shifted  to  the  hospital  by  the  

police personnel.  It is in the above stated background that the  

Appellants were arrested along with the other two accused and  

after  recording  the  statements  of  witnesses,  the  charge-sheet  

came  to  be  filed.   Apart  from  PWs-1  to  4,  the  injured  eye  

witnesses related to the deceased, an independent witness PW-5  

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       4 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 5

who was employed on that day for changing the tiles of the roof  

of the house of PW-1 was also examined. PW-10 was the post  

mortem doctor and Exhibit P-15 is the post mortem certificate.  

PW-8 was the doctor who examined the injured eye witnesses  

PWs  1  to  4  and  Exhibits  P-6,  P-7,  P-8  and    P-9  were  the  

certificates issued by PW-8. M.Os. 2 to 5 were the knives. The  

accused Appellants were arrested on 26.10.1996 at     7 p.m. i.e.  

on the date of occurrence.  

7. PW-1 suffered one grievous injury which is a cut injury at  

left forearm. PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from  

one abrasion. PW-3 suffered two simple injuries. PW-4 suffered  

six cut injuries, of which injury Nos.1 to 3 were simple and injury  

Nos.4  to  6  were  grievous.  PW-32,  the  doctor  examined  the  

accused on 27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. Exhibits P-40, 41, 42  and 39  

were  the  certificates  issued  by  PW-32  relating  to  injuries  

sustained by A-1 to A-4, respectively.  It was recorded by PW-32  

to the effect that the accused Appellants informed PW-32 that  

they were beaten up by the public. Exhibit P-29 is the FSL report  

confirming  presence  of  blood  in  seven  items.  Exhibit  P-30  

disclosed  the  blood  group  of  deceased  as  ‘O’  group.  It  also  

revealed  that  the  blood  found  in  one  of  the  knives  was  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       5 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 6

disintegrated. PW-10, in her evidence, stated that the four knives  

marked in the case could have caused the injuries sustained by  

deceased as well as by other injured persons.

8. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 34  

witnesses apart from marking Exhibits P-1 to P-42.  M.Os.1 to 11  

the material objects were also placed before the Court.  M.Os.2 to  

5 were the knives which were used in the crime. M.Os.7 to 11  

were the dress worn by the deceased Sayeeda. M.O.6 was the  

blood  stained  cement  flooring  while  M.O.7  was  the  cement  

flooring  without  blood  stain.   The  trial  Court  reached  the  

conclusion that all the charges framed against A-5 and A-6 were  

not  proved  beyond  all  reasonable  doubts  and,  therefore,  they  

were  acquitted.   It  also  held  that  the  charges  framed  under  

Section 120B IPC against A-1 to    A-4, that the charge framed  

against A-3 under Section 324, IPC (one count) and the charge  

framed against A-4 under Section 326, IPC were not proved. They  

were  accordingly  acquitted  of  the  said  charges.  It,  however,  

found  all  the  Appellants-accused  guilty  of  the  charges  under  

Section  449,  IPC  and  A-1  was  found  guilty  of  charges  under  

Section 307, IPC and 302, IPC as well as charge under Section  

324, IPC found proved against A-3 and A-4. The Appellants were  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       6 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 7

sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for the charge  

found  proved  against  them under  Section  449,  IPC.   A-1  was  

sentenced to  undergo RI  for  three years  for  an offence  under  

Section 307, IPC. A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergo three  

years RI for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149,  

IPC.   A-1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the  

offence under Section 302, IPC and A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to  

undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read  

with Section 109, IPC. A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo six  

months RI for the offence under Section 324, IPC.

9. In the light of the long period during which they were in jail  

in other cases and since it was pleaded that there was none to  

pay  any  fine  on  their  behalf,  the  trial  Court  refrained  from  

imposing  any  fine  on  Appellants-accused.  By  the  impugned  

judgment the Division Bench of the High Court having confirmed  

the  conviction  and  sentence  imposed  by  the  trial  Court  the  

Appellants are before us.

10. We heard Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned  

Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Subramonium Prasad,  

learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. Tulsi in his  

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       7 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 8

submissions focused mainly on the sentence aspect apparently  

finding  that  the  accused  Appellants  were  apprehended  at  the  

crime spot and caught red-handed. We also do not find anything  

wrong in the approach of the learned Senior Counsel in making  

the submissions as above in the peculiar facts of this  case. In  

support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel pointed  

out that while four knives M.Os. 2 to 5 were marked in the case,  

only one knife was sent for scientific examination in which though  

blood  was  noted  as  per  Exhibit  P-30  the  blood  found  was  

disintegrated.  The  learned  Senior  Counsel  would,  therefore,  

contend that it will have to be proceeded on the footing that only  

one knife was used in the crime. By pointing out the said factor,  

learned  Senior  Counsel  contended  that  it  will  have  a  serious  

bearing  on  the  charge  under  Section  109,  IPC  as  well  as  

invocation of Section 149, IPC could not have been made.

11.   The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that the  

intention of A-1 who was armed with a knife and the others can  

only be attributed with knowledge, in which event, at best the  

conviction can be only under Section 304 Part II, IPC and not for  

the offences for which they were convicted.  To strengthen the  

above submission, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       8 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 9

injuries  found on the body of the deceased under Exhibit P-15  

also disclosed that other than the injury on the neck which was  

attributed to A-1, there was no other injury on any other vital part  

of the body of the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel in his  

submissions, therefore, contended that at best the other accused  

can only be attributed with the possibility of over enthusiasm and  

exaggeration  and,  therefore,  taking  the  above  factors  into  

account,  it  should  be  held  that  the  sentence  already  suffered  

should be held to be sufficient.  

12. The  learned  Senior  Counsel  contended  that  the  accused  

were arrested on 26.10.1996 i.e. on the date of occurrence, that  

while   A-1 and A-2 were granted bail on 05.06.1997,  A-3 and A-4  

were granted bail on 26.05.1997. The learned Senior Counsel also  

submitted  that  A-1  and  A-2  were  subsequently  arrested  in  

connection with the Coimbatore bomb blast case on 28.03.1998  

while A-3 and A-4 were arrested on 24.10.1998 and 16.11.1998,  

respectively. The learned Senior Counsel contended that while A-

1 was convicted in the Coimbatore bomb blast case for seven  

years  and  he  has  already  suffered  the  sentence,  A-2  was  

sentenced to life imprisonment.  As far as A-3 is concerned, it was  

submitted that he was acquitted in the bomb blast case and no  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       9 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 10

further appeal was filed against the said acquittal. A-4 was stated  

to  have  been  imposed  the  sentence  of  10  years  and  he  is  

undergoing the sentence. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore,  

reiterated his submission that if the Appellants’ intention to kill  

was not there and in the absence of Sections 109 and 149, IPC  

being applied, at best, it can only be said that the knowledge of  

the Appellants could have been only to the extent of likelihood of  

death of the deceased and, therefore, 304 Part II, IPC can only be  

applied.  

13. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel who appeared  

for some of the Appellants submitted that while according to the  

case  of  the  prosecution,  seven  persons  were  involved  in  the  

crime, only four were caught red handed, that the clothes worn  

by the accused were not recovered and sent for serological test  

and in the circumstances when PW-1 was not done to death and  

the deceased came to be killed, no intention can be attributed to  

the killing of the deceased as against the accused. The learned  

Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that the offence of murder  

cannot be affirmed as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge  

as well as the High Court.  Learned Senior Counsel relied upon  

the decisions reported in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       10 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 11

Maharashtra - 2013 (6) SCC 770 and Roy Fernandes v. State  

of  Goa  and  others  - 2012  (3)  SCC  221  in  support  of  his  

submissions.

14. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Appellant in  

Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 submitted that indisputably he  

was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and when the said plea  

was  raised  before  the  High  Court,  the  High  Court  declined  to  

grant the relief even though as a matter of fact it was recorded  

that the age of the Appellant on the date of the occurrence was  

17 years and 9 months holding that he was not a juvenile under  

the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 as per the law  

that  was  prevailing  on  that  date.  The  learned  Senior  Counsel  

pointed out that having regard to the development of law as held  

in the subsequent decisions in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan  

and another -  2009 (13) SCC 211, Ajay Kumar v. State of  

Madhya Pradesh - 2010 (15) SCC 83 and Jitendra Singh alias  

Babboo Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh - 2013  

(11) SCC 193 even if the conviction of the said Appellant is to be  

confirmed, he is entitled to the benefit in the matter of sentence  

as provided under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       11 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 12

15. Mr.  Subramonium  Prasad,  learned  Additional  Advocate  

General  for  the  State  in  his  submissions  pointed  out  that  the  

contention based on the FSL report on the use of one knife alone  

cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, at the time when the accused  

were apprehended on the spot all the four knives were recovered  

with the aid of mahazar witnesses which were duly placed before  

the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon  

the eye witness account of PWs 1 to 4 who referred to the use of  

all  the  four  knives  indiscriminately  on  the  spot  by  the  four  

accused  which  evidence was further  supported by the  various  

injuries  sustained  by  those  witnesses  some  of  which  were  

grievous in nature apart from the evidence of the independent  

witness PW-5. Learned Additional Advocate General also pointed  

out that the deceased having suffered as many as 14 injuries all  

over her body, it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend  

that only one knife could have been used which was attributed to  

A-1. Learned Additional Advocate General,  therefore, submitted  

that invoking Section 302 read along with Sections 109 and 149  

was rightly and correctly applied for which they were ultimately  

convicted. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that  

all the accused entered the house of PW-1 fully planned with an  

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       12 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 13

intention to kill, armed with weapons individually and, therefore,  

having regard to their  involvement in the occurrence in which  

one died while two others were seriously injured apart from two  

others  who  suffered  minor  injuries  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  

scope for any leniency in the matter of sentence.   

16. Having  heard  the  respective  submissions  of  the  learned  

counsel,  we  are  also  convinced  that  there  is  no  scope  for  

reducing  the  sentence  as  was  submitted  by  the  learned  

Additional  Advocate  General.  As  far  as  the  submission  made  

based  on  single  knife  is  concerned,  as  rightly  pointed  out  by  

learned  Additional  Advocate  General,  it  is  a  case  where  the  

accused were apprehended on the spot and the recovery of the  

weapons  was  also  carried  out  at  the  time  when  they  were  

apprehended. The said factor cannot be disputed in as much as  

apart from the eye witness account of injured witnesses PWs-1 to  

4, the accused themselves were examined by the doctor PW-32  

on 27.10.1996 at  4.35 p.m.  The  injuries  on their  bodies  were  

noted under Exhibits P-39 to 42 and according to PW-32, at that  

point  of  time  the  accused  themselves  stated  that  they  were  

thrashed  by  the  public  which  is  in  tune  with  the  case  of  the  

prosecution.  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       13 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 14

17. It is also not in dispute that recovered knives were placed  

before the trial Court and marked as M.Os.2 to 5.  That apart,  

PW-10,  the  post  mortem doctor  in  her  certificate  Exhibit  P-15  

confirmed the multiple knife injuries  found on the body of  the  

deceased.  While one of the injuries was on the neck which was  

attributed to A-1, there were other injuries on the vital parts of  

the body as well  as other parts numbering 13 and all  of them  

were incised wounds ranging from 2cm x 1cm to 15cm x 7cm.  

Therefore, it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend that  

only one knife was used to cause so many injuries on the body of  

the deceased.  

18. That  apart,  according to  PW-8,  the doctor  who examined  

PWs-1 to 4 and issued Exhibits P-6 to P-9 certifying the injuries.  

Exhibits  P-6  to  P-9  revealed  that  PW-1  suffered  one  grievous  

injury, PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from one  

abrasion, PW-3 suffered two simple injuries and PW-4 suffered six  

cut injuries of which 1 to 3 were simple and 4 to 6 were grievous.  

One of the injuries suffered by PW-4 resulted in severance of her  

right  hand  ring  finger.  When  such  extensive  injuries  were  

sustained by the injured eye witnesses, it is too late in the day for  

the Appellant to contend and for the Court to accept that only  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       14 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 15

one knife was used and the placement of the other three knives  

could not have been relied upon. The trial Court as well as the  

High  Court  rightly  rejected  the  above  submissions  as  such  

overwhelming evidence was available on record to support the  

case of the prosecution as regards the use of multiple weapons in  

the crime committed by the Appellants.

19.  Once the said contention of the Appellants is rejected, the  

other co1ntentions, namely, that there was no scope to invoke  

Sections 109 and 149, IPC would also fall to the ground. If that is  

the outcome of the above discussion, there is no scope to find  

fault  with  the  ultimate  conclusion  of  the  trial  court  having  

convicted the Appellants for the offences found proved against  

them for which the sentence came to be imposed. We, therefore,  

do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of  

the Appellants to hold that only Section 304 Part II, IPC can be  

applied  and  a  lesser  punishment  should  be  imposed.  Having  

regard to the extensive use of the weapons by the accused in the  

process of killing of the deceased and the inflicting of the injuries  

on PWs-1 to 4, we do not find any scope to show any concession  

in  the  matter  of  punishment  and  consequently  the  said  

submission stands rejected. In the light of our above conclusion,  

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       15 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 16

we do not find any scope to refer to any of the decisions relied  

upon for reduction of sentence.   

20. As far as the submission made by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned  

Senior  Counsel  on  behalf  of  the  Appellant  in  Criminal  Appeal  

No.1410 of 2011 who was A-1 before the trial Court and as rightly  

contended by learned Senior Counsel, we do find support in the  

records placed before us wherein in the reply filed on behalf of  

the State to the application filed for filing additional documents, it  

is stated as under in paragraph (vi):

“The High Court observed that as per the contentions  of the petitioner, he was aged 17 years and 9 months  at  the  time  of  commission  of  the  offence.   It  is  pertinent  to  mention  here  that  the  High  Court  correctly applied the provisions of the 1986 Act in the  present case, thereby leading to the finding that since  the petitioner has attained the age of 17 years and 9  months  on  the  date  of  commission  of  the  offence,  hence he was not a juvenile as per the provisions of  the Act of 1986.”

21. Once, therefore, it is shown that the Appellant in Criminal  

Appeal No.1410 of 2011, who was A-1, was only 17 years and 9  

months on the date of the occurrence, the decision reported in  

Ajay  Kumar  v.  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  (supra)  applies  

wherein in the similar circumstances it was held as under:

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       16 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 17

“6. Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection  of  Children)  Rules,  2007  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Juvenile  Justice  Rules,  2007”)  provides  the  procedure as to  how a case of  a  juvenile  who is  in  conflict  with  law should  be disposed of.   The  same  reads as follows:

“98.  Disposed  off  cases  of  juveniles  in  conflict with law- The State Government or as  the case may be the Board may, either suo motu  or  on  an  application  made  for  the  purpose,  review  the  case  of  a  person  or  a  juvenile  in  conflict  with  law,  determine  his  juvenility  in  terms of the provisions contained in the Act and  Rule 12 of these Rules and pass an appropriate  order  in  the interest  of  the juvenile  in  conflict  with  law  under  Section  64  of  the  Act,  for  the  immediate release of the juvenile in conflict with  law whose period of detention or imprisonment  has exceeded the maximum period provided in  Section 15 of the said Act.

7.  In  the  light  of  the  aforesaid  provisions,  the  maximum  period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special home  is for three years.  In the instant case, we are informed that  the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone  detention for a period of about approximately 14 years.  In  that view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a  minor on the date of commission of the offence and has  already  undergone  more  than  the  maximum  period  of  detention as provided for under Section 15 of the Juvenile  Justice  Act,  by  following the provisions of  Rule  98 of  the  Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read Section 15 of the Juvenile  Justice Act, we allow the appeal with a direction that the  appellant be released forthwith.”

22. Having  regard  to  the  said  legal  position,  the  very  same  

consequences set out in the said decision should apply to the  

case of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 who  Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       17 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011

Page 18

has already suffered more than the maximum period of detention  

as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act. The said appellant was  

enlarged  on  bail  by  this  Court’s  order  dated  18.07.2011.  

Therefore,  while confirming his conviction as per the judgment  

impugned  in  this  appeal,  we  hold  that  he  is  entitled  for  the  

benefit  of  the  provisions  of  the  Juvenile  Justice  Act  and  the  

sentence  already undergone by him shall  be sufficient  for  the  

above conviction. Therefore, he shall not be detained any more in  

this  case unless  his  detention is  warranted in  any other  case.  

Criminal appeal No. 1410 stand disposed of on the above terms.  

23. The appeals filed by the other Appellants in Criminal Appeal  

No.567 of 2012 by A-4 and Criminal Appeal No.568 of 2012 by A-

2 and A-3 stand dismissed.

.……….…………………………………..J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

………..…………………………………..J.                    [Shiva Kirti Singh]

August 06, 2014 New Delhi.

Crl.A.No.567/2012 with                                                                       18 of 18

Crl.A.No.568/2012 & Crl.A.No.1410/2011