C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

[2010) 10 S.C.R. 262 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of 2008) AUGUST 30, 2010 [G. S. SINGHVI AND DR. B.S .. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860:

c ss. 302, 3021114, 307 and 3071114 – Three of the members of a group of agitators setting ablaze a University bus full of girl-students – Three girls burnt alive to death and several others received burn injuries – HELD: Cowts below

rightly convicted and sentenced the three accused to death 0 – Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman to the highest degree – The manner of the commission of the offence is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel – : It is sho_cking to the collective conscience of society –

Sentence/Sentencing – Sentence of death – Aggravating and E mitigating circumstances – Explained. SS. 1471148, 341 /PC and SS. 3 and 4 of TN (POL) Act, 1982 rlw s. 149 – /PC Offences committed by a group of

agitators – Conviction and sentence by trial court – Sentence directed to run consecutively – High Court directing F sentences to run concurrently – HELD: The maximum sentence to be served by the accused as per High Court

judgment being 2 years and accused having served 14 months of sentence, in the circumstances of the case, sentence reduced to the period already undergone – Tamil G Nadu (Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Laggers, Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders Activities, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Videopirate) Act, 1982.

· Evidence: C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU Discrepancies in evidence – HELD: An undue A importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.

Hostile witness – Evidence of – HELD: cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. Extra-judicial confessional statement – Exhibiting of –

Explained. Investigation: Irregularities in investigation – HELD: In the instant case, irregularities-committed in the investigation by the earlier I. Os. have too little _relevance on the merits of the case an9 the material of earlier investigations has rightly been not relied upon by the ·subsequent Investigating Officer.

Obligation on trial court in case of defective investigation – HELD: Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial – Where there has been negligence or omissions etc. on the part of the investigating agency, which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such /apses and examine whether the lapses had

affected the prosecution case: Test identification parade – HELD: Is a part of investigation and provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it enables the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom

they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence – Holding the test identification (2010) 10 S.C.R. A parade is not substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration that a person brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime – However, the test identification parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy 8 evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be

sustained – It is a rule of prudence which is required to . be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 9 – Test identification parade.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s.195 – Cognizance by court, of offence punishable uls 188 /PC – HELD: The provisions of s.195 are mandatory – Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all o other consequential orders – Law does not permit taking

cognizance of any offence punishable uls 188 /PC unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent public servant – In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction – However, non- E compliance of s. 195 would have no bearing on the prosecution case so far charges for other offences are concerned – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 188.

Criminal Trial: Clubbing of two Criminal cases into one trial – HELD: In the instant case, second incident was a fall out of the first occurrence – Merely because two separate complaints had

been lodged, it would not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed – Practice G and Procedure. Criminal Law: Crime and society – Crimes occurring in presence of

public and police – Social sensitivity – Duty of police and C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 265 protectors of law – A University bus full of girl students set A ablaze by some of the agitators – Three young girls charred to death while several others sustained bum injuries – HELD:. Even if the common man fails to respond to the call of his conscience, the police should not have remained inactive – The administration did not bother to find out why the police did not intervene and assist in the rescue, much less

reprimand them for failing in their duty. During the "Rasta Roko Agitation" staged against conviction of a political leader, a mob of 100-150 of her C suppc:irters, while .the prohibition order u/s 60 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 was in force, damaged a town bus and

set ablaze a University bus with 47 girl-students, with the result that 3 students burnt alive and 28 others received burn injuries and several others sustained serious injuries. Two FIRs were lodged as regards the occurrence

involving both the buses. In all, 30 accused were convicted u/ss .188, 341 IPC, ·and ss. 3 and 4 of the TNP (POL) Act read 'withs. 149 IPC. They were also convicted u/s 147 IPC except A-24, who was convicted u/s 148 IPC.

Besides, A-2 to A-4 were also found guilty of setting the University bus ablaze and burning three girl-students to death and causing burn injuries and other serious injuries to 28 others for which A-2 and A-3 were convicted u/s 302 IPC each for three counts and A-4 u/s 302 read

withs. 114 IPC for three counts; A-2 and A-3 were further convicted u/s 307 IPC each for 46 counts and A-4 u/s 307 read with s.114 IPC for 46 counts; A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to death. The sentences imposed on the other

accused persons were directed to run consecutively which extended to 7 years odd. The High Court G confirmed the death sentences of A-2 to A-4, but modified the sentences of the other accused to run concurrently.

In the appeals filed by the convicts, it was contended for them that in the absence of any complaint by the [2010) 10 S.C.R. A competent officer whose prohibition order was stated to

have been violated, the charge u/s 188 IPC could not have been framed; that the Criminal cases registered in respect of two separate FIRs could not have been clubbed into one single trial; that there were

B contradictions in the statements of alleged eye- witnesses; and, as such, the case did not warrant any trial. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 From the record, involvement of A-2 to A-

4 in the incident of setting fire to the University bus has been substantiated. From the evidence of PW-99, PW-4, PW-5, PW-1 and PW-2, PW-8, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, it has been established that A-2 to A-4 came on motorcycle, A-

D 1 and A-3 sprinkled petrol inside the bus and set the bus ablaze. PW-99 has spoken about A-2 to A-4. He is an advocate and belongs to the locality. He has deposed that A-2 had set fire to the. Route No.7-B town bus. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-97 that while the

E bus was in flames, some persons tried to douse the fire but they were prevented by A-23. A-2 remained present in the earlier occurrence as well as the subsequent occurrence. It is significant to note that A-4 had kept the engine of the motor cycle running only to escape from

F the scene of occurrence along with A-2 and A-3 after the occurrence. The said fact would also indicate the mind of the accused to commit the offence and to flee from the scene of occurrence to avoid the clutches of law. But for

PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 and some other students who became G alert immediately after the bus was set on fire, the consequence could have been disastrous and more deaths could have occurred. [para 47, 51-56]

1.2 So far as the issue of damage to the buses and C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU '" ' \ the main incident of setting the University bus on fire is concerned, both the courts have proceeded on the

finding, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, that there was no common object between A-2, A-3 and A-4 on the one hand, and the other accused, on the other, regarding murder of the students and burning of the bus.

Therefore, all of them had been convicted under different sections. However, the High Court directed the sentence to run concurrently so far as A-1, A-5 to A-14, A-16 to A- 21, A-23 to A-26 and A-28 to A-31 are concerned. There

has been sufficient material to show their participation in the "Rasto Roko Andolan" and indulging in the incident of damaging the local route bus. Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact in this

regard and there is no reason to interfere with the same. [para 46] [302-C-E] 1.3 As regards the doubts raised about the arrest of A-4, and his confessional statement, there 'has been no

cross-examination independently on his behalf on this issue. Even in cross-examination on behalf of other accused nothing has been elicited qua irregularity or improbability of the arrest of A-4. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the arrest of A- 4 as shown by the

1.0. [para 45] [301-E-H; 302-A-B] 1.4 A large number of injured students were examined in the court. They supported the prosecution case but did not identify any person either in the test identification

parade or in the court. Their seating position in the bus had been such that they could not see as who had sprinkled the petrol in the bus. Besides, the photographer (PW-51) photographed and videographed the spot of the

agitation. He also photographed the burning bus. He watched the video prepared by him in the court and identified the same. [para 62) [308-F-G] 2.1 If there are some omissions, contradictions and

discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a

8 conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the

heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the C prosecution witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to

occur in the statements of witnesses. The omissions and improvements in the evidence of the PWs pointed out in the instant casse are found to be very trivial in nature. D [para 70-71] [311-F-G; 312-A-B]

· Sohrab & Anr. v. The State of M.P., .1973 ( 1 ) SCR 472 =AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai v. State of E Gujarat, 1983 ( 3 ) SCR 280 = AIR 1983 SC 753; State of

Rajasthan v. Om Prakash 2007 (7) SCR 1000 = AIR 2007 SC 2257; Prithu @ Prithi Chand & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2009 (2 ) SCR 765 = (2009) 11 SCC 588; State of UP. v. Santosh Kumar & Ors., 2009 (14 ) SCR 106 =

F (2009) 9 SCC 626; and State v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 151 – relied on. 2.2 The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which

are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or G the defence. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. PW-86; and PW-51 turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts

below strictly in accordance with law. [para 70] [311-D- C. MUNIAPPAt•ra-ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 269 Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1976 ( 2 ) SCR 921 = AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of

Orissa, 1977 ( 1 ) SCR 439 =AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 1980 ( 1 ) SCR 95 = AIR 1979 SC 1848; and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 ( 3 ) SCR 1 =AIR 1991 SC 1853; State of B

U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr., 1996 ( 4) Suppl. SCR 631 =AIR 1996 SC 2766; Batu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 135 = (2002) 7 SCC 543; Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of c

UP., 2006 (1 ) SCR 519 =AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraia Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., 2007 (11 ) SCR 300 =AIR 2008 SC 320; and Subbu Singh v. State, 2009 (7 ) SCR 383 = (2009) 6 sec 462 – relied on

2.3 As regards exhibiting and reading of an extra- judicial confessional statement, only the admissible part of it c·an be exhibited. The statement as a whole, if exhibited and relied upon by the prosecution, leads to the possibility of the court getting prejudiced against the

accused. In the instant case, the confessional statement of A-4 had been exhibited in the court in its full text. It was neither required nor warranted nor was permissible. However, in view of the fact that there had been other

sufficient material on record to show his involvement in the crime, the full exhibition of the statement had not prejudiced the case against him. [para 67-68] [310-C-E] Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2006

(10 ) Suppl. SCR 662 = (2007) 12 SCC 230; State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde & Ors., 2000 ( 3 ) SCR 880 =AIR 2000 SC 1691; and Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2865 – relied on.

Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 – referred to [2010) 10 S.C.R. 3.1 The investigation is no~ the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on

the probity of investigation. The defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Where there has B been negligence on the part of the investigating agency

or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the evidence is reliable or c not and to what extent the lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. It is to be examined as to whether

there is any lapse by the 1.0. and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. [para 43-44] [301-A-B; 300-F-H] Chandra Kanth Lakshmi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR

1974 SC 220; Kamel Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 629 = (1995) 5 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1998 ( 2) SCR 1097 = AIR 1998 SC 1850; Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1999 ( 1 ) SCR

E 55 = AIR 1999 SC 644; State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, 1999 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 359 =AIR 2000 SC 185; Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh 2003 .( 1 ) SCR 754 = AIR 2003 SC 1164; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (11 ) SCR 1011 = AIR 2002 SC 1051; and Ram Bali v. State

F ·of UP., 2004 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 195 =AIR 2004 SC 2329 – relied on. 3.2 In the instant case, the occurrence was so ugly and awful that the I.Os. had conducted the investigation G under great anxiety, tension and in a charged

atmosphere. Therefore, some irregularities were bound to occur. The State authorities ultimately transferred the investigation to the CBCID. Therefore, the irregularities committed in the investigation by the earlier I.Os. have too little relevance on the merits of the case and the material C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

of earlier investigation has rightly been not relied upon by the subsequent Investigating Officer. [para 43-44) [301- A-B; 300-A-E] 3.3 The test identification parade is a part of the

investigation and is very useful in a case where the accused are not known before hand to th~ witnesses. It provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it enables the

witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused ·whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence. The accused should not C be shown to any of the witnesses after arrest; and before

holding the test identification parade, he is required to be kept "baparda". [para 36) [297 -H; 298-A-C] 3.4 Holding the test identification parade is not D substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the

purpose of corroboration that a person brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime. However, the test identification parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as

trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be sustained. It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant. [para 32)

[296-C-D] State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 286 = AIR 1999 SC 3916 – relied on. Mui/a & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 201 O (2 ) SCR 633 = (2010) 3 SCC 508; Matru@ Girish Chandra v.

The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1971 ( 3 ) SCR 914 =AIR 1971 SC 1050; and Santokh Singh v. lzhar Hussain & Anr., 197 4 ( 1 ) SCR 78 =AIR 1973 SC 2190; Lal Singh & Ors v. State of UP., AIR 2004 SC 299; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of

Bihar 1994 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 483 = AIR 1994 SC 2420; (2010] 10 S.C.R. A Ma/khan Singh v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 443 = AIR 2003 SC 2669; Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v. State

of Maharashtra, 2009 (7 ) SCR 182 = (2009) 6 SCC 667; and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 2009 (13 ) SCR 774 = (2009) 9 SCC 719; Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh s & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 ( 2 ) SCR 1209 = AIR 1998 SC 1922; Lalli@ Jagdeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan,

(2003) 12 SCC 666; Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2004 (1 ) SCR 952 = (2004) 3 SCC 106; Maya Kaur Ba/devsingh Sardar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 c (10) SCR 752 = (2007) 12 SCC 654; and Aslam@ Deewan

v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (13 ) SCR 1010 = (2008) 9 SCC 227; Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 677 = (2006) 12 SCC 512; D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik & Ors., 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 520 =AIR

0 2004 SC 4965; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 375 =, (1994) 3 SCC 569; Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 1999 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 113 =AIR 1999 SC 2562 – referred to.

3.5 In the instant case, it is evident that all the . E accused for whom test identification parades were conducted were identified by some of the witnesses in the jail. They were also identified by some of the eye

witnesses/injured witnesses in the court. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that identification of A-2 to F A-4 by the witnesses, if examined in conjunction with the evidence of the Judicial Magistrate, PW-89 and his

reports, particularly, Exh. P.137 and P.142, leaves no room for doubt regarding the involvement of A-2 to A-4 in the crime. There is no cogent reason to take a contrary G view. Not supporting of the prosecution case by PW.86

would not tilt the balance of the case in favour of the appellants. [para 39 and 42) (298-F-G; 299-F-GJ 4.1 The provisions of s.195 Cr.PC are mandatory. C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 273

Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence punishable uls 188 IPC unless there is a complaint by the competent public

servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The court cannot assume cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and

conviction will be void ab initio be~ng without jurisdiction. In the instant case, no such complaint had ever been filed. Therefore, it was not permissible for the trial Court c to frame a charge uls 188 IPC. [para 25 and 27] [293-C-D;

F-G] M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 160 =AIR 2000 SC 168; Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. 1998 ( 1 ) SCR 492 = (1998) 2 SCC 493; and Dau/at Ram v. State of Punjab 1962 Suppl. SCR

812 =AIR 1962 SC 1206 – relied on. Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar1971 Suppl. SCR 777 =AIR 1971 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat 1971 Suppl. SCR 834 =AIR 1971 SC

1935; Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh, 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 70 = (1996) 3 SCC 533; State of Punjab v. Raj Singh & Anr. 1998 (1) SCR 223 = (1998) 2 SCC 391; K. Vengadachalam v. K. C. Palanisamy & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 352; and Iqbal

Singh NJarwah & ~nr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. 2005 (2) SCR 708 =AIR 2005 SC 2119; Basir-ul-Haq & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, 1953 SCR 836 = AIR 1953 SC 293; and Durgacharan Naik & Ors v. State of Orissa, 1966

SCR 636 = AIR 1966 SC 1775 – referred to. ·4.2 However, it cannot be said that absence of a complaint ·u1s 195 Cr.PC falsifies the genesis of the prosecution case and is fatal to the entire case. In the

instant case, there is ample evidence on record to show that there was a prohibitory order, which had been issued A by the competent officer one day before; it had been given due publicity and had been brought to the notice

of the public at large; it has been violated as there is no denial even by the accused persons that there was no 'Rasta Roko Andolan'. The agitation which initially started B peacefully, turned ugly and violent when the public

transport vehicles were subjected to attack and damage. In such an eventuality, in case the charges u/s 188 IPC are quashed, it would by no means have any bearing on _ the case of the prosecution, so far as the charges for

c other offences are concerned. [para 27] [293-G-H; 294-A- 5. As regards clubbing of two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 together, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two

D incidents occurred and taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence PW-87, the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out

of the first one. The damage caused to the public E transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had

been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge sheet could not be filed. [para F 28] [294-D-F] T. T. Antony v. State of Kera/a & Ors. 2001 ( 3 ) SCR

942 = (2001) 6 sec 181 – relied on. 6.1 So far as sentencing is concerned, criminal law G requires strict adherence to the rule of proportionality in providing punishment according to the culpability of

each kind of criminal conduct keeping in mind the effect of not awarding just punishment on the society. [para 75] State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, 2008 (12) SCR 929 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

= AIR 2009 SC 391; and Sahdev v. Jaibar@ Jai Dev & Ors., 2009 (3 ) SCR 722 =(2009) 11 SCC 798; Bantu v. State of U. P., 2008 (11) SCR 184 = (2008) 11 SCC 113, Sevaka Perumal v. State ofT.N. 1991 ( 2) SCR 711 =AIR 1991 SC

1463 – relied on. 6.2 Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception. The "rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co- existence of the society.

Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the- mo'!'ent provocation and he indulged himself in a C deliberately planned crime and meticulously executed it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate

punishment for such a ghastly crime. Therefore, the court must satisfy itself that death penalty would be the only . punishment which can be meted out to a convict. It has to be considered whether any other punishment would

be completely inadequate and what would be the mitigating and aggra¥1:1ting circumstances in the case. Murder is always foul. However, the degree of brutality, depravity, diabolic nature and the circumstances under

which murders take place differ in each case. [para 75- 76] (315-E-H; 316-A] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1983 ( 3 ) SCR

413 =AIR 1983 SC 957; Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2002 ( 2 ·) SCR 767 =AIR 2002 SC 1661; Atbir v. Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi, JT 2010 (8) SC 372; Mahesh v. State of M.P., 1987 ( 2) SCR 710 =AIR 1987 SC 1346 ….. relied

on. 6.3 tn the instant case, the girl-students of the University, while on tour had been the victims of a heinous crime. A demonstration by the appellants which had started peacefully, took an ugly turn when the

A appellants started damaging public transport vehicles. Damaging the pu.blic transport 'vehicles ~id. not satisfy th_ell'.1 and they became the law unto themselves. ~ome of the appel.lants had evil design.~ to ca,use damage to a greater extent so that people may learn a "lesson". In

8 order to succeed in their mission, A-2, A-3 and A-4 went to the extent of sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting i_t on fire with the s~udents still inside the bus. They were fully aware th~t the gir's n;iigh,t not be able to escape, when they set the bus on fire. As it

C happened, some of the girls did not escape the burning bus. No provocation of any kind ~ad been· offered by any . of the girls or by any person whatsoever. A-2, A~3 and A- 4 c;fid not pay any heed to the pleas 111ade by P.W1 and

PW2, the teachers, to spare the girls. They cciu~ed the d~ath of three innocent y()ung girls and ~\Jrn inj\Jries to another twenty. There can ~e absolutely no justification for the commission of such a brutal offence. This shows

the highest clegree of depr~vity and bru~lity on the part of A-2, A-3 and A-4. [para 77] [316~C-H; ~17-A~BJ 6.4 The aggravating circumstances in the case of A· 2, A-3 and A-4 are that this offence ha~ been committed

after previou$ planning an~ with extreme brutality. These murders involved exceptional depravity on the part of A- 2, A-3 and A-4. These were the murders of helpless, F innocent, unarmed, young girl students in a totally

unprovoked situation. No mitigating circumstances could be pointed out to impose a lesser sentence on them. Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman to the highest degree. Thus, the manner of the commission of

G the offence in the present case is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and cruel. It is shocking to the · collective conscience of society. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the punishment of death sentence

awarded to A-2, A-3 and A-4 by the courts below and the H same is confirmed. [para 77] [317-C~FJ C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 277 6.5 So far as the other appellants are concerned, the

maximum sentence to be served by them as per the judgment of the High Court is two years. MQst of these appellants have already served more than 14 months of their sentence and they are on bail. The incident occurred on 2.2.2000, so more than ten and a half years have

already elapsed since the incident. These appellants have already suffered a l()t. Their sentences are reduced to the period undergone. [para 77] [317-G] 7. The crime occurred right in the middle of a busy

city. Innocent girls trapped in a burning bus were C shouting for help and only the male students from their University came to their rescue and succeeded in saving some of them. There were large number of people

includjng the shopke~pers, media persons and .on-duty police personnel, present at the place of the "Rasta Roko Andolan", which was very close to the place of the o.ccurrence of the crime, and none ()f thei11 considered it proper to help .in the rescue of the victims. J;ven if .the common man .fails to respond t() the call of his

conscience, the police should not have remained inactive. But the police stood there and witnessed such a heinous crime being committed and allowed the burning of the bus and roasting of the innocent children.

The administration did not bother to find out why the police did not intervene and assist in the rescue of the girl students, much.less reprimand them for failing in their duty. If the common citizens and public officials present

at the scene of the crime had done their duty, the death of three innocent young girls could have been prevented. [para 78] [318-A-D] Case Law Reference: 1971 Suppl. SCR 777 1971 Suppl. SCR 834

referred to referred to para 20 para 20 [201 O] 10 S.C.R. 1996 (3) SCR 70 referred to para 20 1998 (1) SCR 223 referred to para 20 2005 (7) sec 352 referred to para 20 2005 (2) SCR 708

referred to para 20 referred to para 21 referred to para 21 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 160 relied on para 22 c 1998 (1) SCR .492 relied on para 23 1962 Suppl. SCR 812 relied on para 24 2001 (3) SCR 942

relied on para 28 AIR 2004 SC 299 referred to para 29 AIR 1994 SC 2420 referred to para 30 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 443 referred ·to para 30 2009 (7) SCR 182 referred to para 30 2009 (13) SCR 774

referred to para 30 2004 (1) SCR 952 referred to para 30 (2003) 12 sec 666 referred to para 30 1998 (2) SCR 1209 referred to para 30 2007 (10) SCR 752 referred to para 30 2008 (13) SCR 1010

refe.rred to para 30 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR677 referred to para 31 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR520 referred to para 31 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR286 relied on para 32 C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 279

2010 (2) SCR 633 1971 (3) SCR 914 1974 (1) SCR 78 1994 (2) SCR 375 referred to referred to referred to referred to 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 483 referred to 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 113 referred to

AIR 1974 SC 220 relied on 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 629 relied on 1998 (2) SCR 1097 relied on 1999 (1) SCR 55 relied on 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 relied on 2003 (1) SCR 754 relied on 2002 (1) SCR1011

relied on 2004 (1) Suppl. S<tR 195 relied on 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 662 relied on 2000 (3) SCR 880 relied on AIR 2004 SC 2865 AIR 1947 PC 67 1976 (2) SCR 921 relied on referred to relied on

1977 (1) SCR 439 relied on 1980 (1) SCR 95 relied on 1991 (3) SCR 1 relied on 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 631 relied on 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 135 relied on para 33 para 33 para 33 para 34 para 34

para 35 para 44 para 44 para 44. para 44 para 44 para 44 ·para 44· para 44 para 65 para 66 . para 66 para 66 para 69 para 69 para 69 para 69 para 70 para 70 c [2010) 10 S.C.R. (2006) 13 sec 516

relied on para 70 2006 (1) SCR 519 relied on para 70 2007 (11) SCR 300 relied on para 70 2009 (7) SCR383 relied on para 70 1973 (1) SCR 472 relied on para 71 AIR 1985 SC 48 relied on

para 71 1983 (3) SCR 280 relied on para 71 c 2007 (7) SCR 1000 relied on para 71 (2009) 11 sec 588 relied on para 71 2009 (14) SCR 106 relied on para 71 2009 (2) SCR 765 relied on

para 71 AIR 1980 SC .898 relied on para 72 1983 (3) SCR 413 relied on para 73 2002 (2) SCR 767 relied on para 74 JT 2010 (8) SC 372 relied on para 74 1987 (2) SCR 710 relied on para 75

2008 (12) SCR 929 relied on para 75 2009 (3) SCR 722 relied on para 75 2008 (11) SCR 184 relied on para 75 1991 (2) SCR 711 relied on para 75 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal

Nos. 127-130 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2007 of the High C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NAOU 281 Court of Madras Death Sentence Referred Trial No. 1 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 226, 266, & 267 of 2007.

WITH Criminal Appeal No. 1632-1634 of 2010. Sushil Kumar, P.N. Prakash, P.H. Manoj Pandian, Subramonium Prasad, Shyam D. Nandan, Rajat Khattry, Gurukrishnakumar, Aditya Kumar, Anmol Thakral for the

Appellants. c Altaf Ahmed, R. Shunmugas(mdaram, Srinivasan, Promila, S. Thananjayan, R. Nedumaran for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S; CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in Special

Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1482-1484 of 2008. 2. These appeals have ~een preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2007 of the High Court of Madras in Crl. Appeal Nos. 226, 266 and 267 of 2007, and

Death Sentence Reference in Trial No. 1 of 2007. 3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 22.1.2000, the students of the Horticulture College and Research Centre, Periakulam, affiliated to the Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University, Coimbatore (hereinafter called the 'University'), left for an educational tour in two buses. One bus was carrying male students and the other bus was carrying 47 female students. After completing the educational tour, the students came to Paiyur, near Dharmapuri, on 1.2.2000, at

about 12.00 midnight, and stayed in the Regional Agricultural Research Centre. On the next day, after visiting the research centre, they left for a tour to Hogenakkal from Dharmapuri, which was the last leg of their tour as per their revised tour programme. They visited a nursery garden on 2.2.2000 and

reached Dharmapuri at 12.30 p.m. and parked their buses in front of Saravanabhavan Hotel. The students and the two A teachers accompanying them went to the Saravanabhavan Hotel to take their meals and to purchase parcels of food. Some of the students remained .in the bus itself.

4. In view of naxalite movement and activities around Dharmapuri, the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 8 Dharmapuri had promulgated a prohibitory order under Sections 30-A and 61 of the Indian Police Act, 1861, which expired on 31.1.2000, and thus, a fresh prohibitory order was issued on 31.1.2000, for fifteen days. On 2.2.2000, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Ms. J. Jayalalitha, along with four others C was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year

imprisonment in the Pleasant Stay Hotel, Kodailkanal, case. According to the prosecution, when the news of her conviction spread, the AIADMK party members resorted to dharnas and took out processions in Dharmapuri and compelled the shop

D keepers to close their shops by pelting stones. The news of conviction and sentence of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was being broadcast on T:V. and radio, thus, the students and teachers also came to know about it.

5. According to the prosecution, a procession of 100 to 150 party workers having flags of AIADMK party, armed with sticks and stones passed on the roads nearby the buses, raising slogans. The girl students witnessed the procession but remained in the bus. Dr. Latha (PW.1). the teacher

accompanying the students, contacted the Vice-Chancellor of F the University and told the students that the Vice-Chancellor had instructed them to stay at a safe place and return to Coimbatore after the situation becomes normal: On this advice, the drivers of both the buses made an attempt to take the buses to the District Collector's office. However, the buses could not reach G there because of the obstruction of the traffic on the way, as the political workers staging dharna came on the road. Mr. P. Kandasamy (PW.4), driver of bus no. TN-38-C-5550, which

was carrying the girl students, moved the bus to some distance and parked it in a vacant place near an old petrol bunk. The H bus carrying the boys was also moved there. The accused, C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] along with other political workers formed an unlawful assembly indulging in a 'road roko agitation', under the leadership of D.k. Rajendran (A.1 ), violating the prohibitory order at lllakkiampatti, near the MGR statue on the Salem-Bangalore National

Highway, prevented the free flow of traffic and caused nuisance to general public a_t large. They damaged the government buses having registration nos. TN-29-N-1094, TN-29-N-0543 and TN-29-N-1011 by breaking their glasses and also set fire to the three seats of one of the buses (being a town bus with Route No. 7-B).

6. As per the Prosecution, Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) having the commo'n object· to cause damage to the buses, left the aforesaid place and went to the motor workshop of B. Kamal · (PW.86), namely "Majestic Auto Garage", and procured petrol in two plastic cans and came to the place where the bus in which the girl students were travelling was parked. It is alleged that Nedu· (A.2) and Madhu (A.3) sprinkled petrol inside the bus through ~the first two shutters on the left-side and Nedu (A.2) lit a match stick and threw it inside the bus. Nedu (A.2) and

Madhu (A.3) went towards the motor bike which was already kept ready for running by C. Muniappan (A.4) and escaped from the scene. The fire lit at the front-side of the bus spread backwards. Dr. Lath a (PW.1) and Akila (PW.2) (both teachers) managed to get down from the bus from the front door along with some students. Some girl students stretched their heads and hands through the shutters and the boy students pulled them out. However, three students, namely; Kokilavani, Hemalatha and Gayathri could not escape from the burning bus. They were burnt alive inside the bus. Some of the girl students got burn injuries while getting down from the bus and some were injured while they were being pulled out through the shutters. The injured students were taken to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, where they were treated by Dr. K.S. Sampath (PW.30).

7. On the same day, an FIR was lodged at about 1.30 p.m. in the police station regarding the occurrence of the incident [2010] 10 $.C.R. A involving the Town Bus with route no.7-B. In respect of the other incident, i.e. the Bus burning, an FIR was lodged at about 3.30 p.m. vide written complaint (Exh. P.120) and a case under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 436 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil . B Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 (in short as ''TNP (PDL) Act") was registered. In the said FIR, the name of C. Muniappan (A.4) was not mentioned. A general

statement was made that "some persons shouting slogans surrounded the bus and broke down the window panes" and c Nedu (A.2) and Madhu (A.3) poured the petrol from the front entrance of the bus and set it on fire. As far as the damage caused to the government buses at lllakkiampatti is concerned, on 2.2.2000, Elangovan (PW.60), a Senior Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri, at 8.00 p.m. submitted a written complaint (Exh. P.82) under Sections 147, 148, 341, 436 and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the TNp (PDL.) Act.

8. dn these complaints, investigations were carried out by Ayyasamy, Inspector of Police (PW.81), and he inspected the · E place of occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. in the presence of witnesses Velayutham (-PW.67) and Vetrivel (PW.68) and

prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex. P .107). He also prepared a rough sketch and recovered broken glass and brick pieces from the place under the Seizure Mahazar (Ex. P .109). F The buses were inspected on the next day by Motor Vehicles · Inspector and he prepared reports in respect of the same (Exs. P.116 to P.119).

9. Dr. A.C. Natarajan (PW:31) conducted an autopsy on the body of Kokilavani, Dr. N. Govindaraj (PW.35) conducted G an autopsy on the body of Gayathri and Dr. Rajkumar (PW.38) conducted an autopsy on the body of Hemalatha and issued

Exs. P .23, P .33 and P .28, Post mortem certificates, respectively. 10. In respect of the second incident, regarding bu~ no. C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 285 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

TN-38-C-5550, Crime No. 188 of 2000 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by Village Administrative Officer, C. Ramasundaram (PW.87). Since the officer-in-charge of police station was on court duty, Shanmugaiah, Inspector of Police (PW.116) took up the investigation. However, after two days, i.e. on 4.2.2000, Vilvaranimurugan, Inspector of Police (PW.119) took over the investigation from Shanmugaiah

(PW.116). On 6.2.2000, investigation was transferred to the CBCID and R. Samuthirapandi, Additional Superintendent of Police (PW.123), became the Investigating Officer. 11. After completing the investigation, a report under C

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "Cr.PC"), was filed on 28.4.2000, arraying 31 persons as accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, vide Order dated 25.7.2000. The Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, framed 21 charges against D all accused persons vide order dated 8.10.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 307 read with Sections 302, 114 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 TNP (POL) Act. During the course of trial, 10 out of 11 witnesses, who had been examined, turned hostile, including C. Ramasundaram (PW.87) who had lodged the

complaint in respect of second incident. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved, Veerasamy, father of one of the victims, namely, Kokilavani, approached the High Court of Madras by filing Cr. O.P. No. 23520 of 2001 under Section 407 Cr.PC seeking

transfer of the trial from Krishnagiri to Coimbatore on various grounds, inter-alia, that all the accused were from the AIADMK party and were holding the party posts; most of the witnesses who had been examined had turned hostile, including the

complainant C. Ramasundaram; all the accused and most of the witnesses were from the Coimbatore District and thus, they G would be won over by the accused. Therefore, conduct of an impartial trial was not possible at Krishnagiri. The High Court allowed the said Transfer Petition vide order dated 22.8.2003 issuing some directions, including the appointment of the

Special Public Prosecutor and to have a de-novo trial. The H A said order of transfer was challenged by D.K. Rajendran (A.1), by filing SLP(Crl.) No. 4678 of 2003. However, the said SLP was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2003.

12. The Special Public Prosecutor was appointed after filing of a contempt petition before the High Court for not B complying with its order dated 22.8.2003. The State Government initiated Departmental Proceedings against the

Village Administrative Officer, C. Ramasundaram (PW.87), the complainant, who had been examined at Krishnagiri Court, for not supporting the case of the prosecution. After a long delay, C vide order dated 14.3.2005, the Sessions Court, Salem,

framed 22 charges against the 31 a·ccused, as the trial was being conducted de-novo. During the trial, 123 witnesses were examined and after assessing the facts and the legal issues, the Trial Court delivered the judgment and order dated

D 16.2.2007. In total, 31 accused w.ere put to trial. R. Chellakutty (A.22) died during trial. S. Palanisamy (A.15) and A. Madesh @ Madesh Mastheri (A.27) stood acquitted. The remaining 28

accused were convicted under Sections 188, 341 IPC and 3 E & 4 of TNP (POL) Act r/w 149 IPC. In addition, all of them except accused No. 24, Mani @ Member Mani, were convicted for

offence u/s 147. IPC, whereas accused No. 24, Mani @ Member Mani was convicted, for an offence u/s 148 IPC. Apart from that accused No. 2, Nedu @ Nedunchezhian, and accused F No. 3, Madhu @ Ravindran, were convicted for offences u/s 302 IPC (3 counts) and accused No. 4, C. Muniappan, u/s 302 r/w. · 114 IPC (3 counts) and the accused Nos.2 and 3 were

convicted also for offences u/s 307 IPC (46 counts) and C. Muniappan (A4) for offences u/s 307 r/w 114 IPC for 46 counts. G Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were sentenced to death. The sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1, 5 to 14, 16

to 21, 23 to 26 and 28 to 3:t'were ordered to run consecutively which extended to 7 years and 3 months and sentence of 7 years and 9 months to accused No. 24. C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 287

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] 13. All the 28 convicts filed appeals before the High Court of Madras. The death sentence references in respect to Nedu (A.2), Madhu (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) were also made.

Crl. Revision No. 777 of 2007 was filed by R. Kesava Chandran @ Moorthy, the father of one of the deceased, namely, Hemalatha, for enhancement of punishment imposed on all the . B accused. As all the appeals, references and Crl. Revision arose out of a common judgment, they were taken up jointly and

disposed of by the High Court vide impugned judgment and . order dated 6.12.2007. · On hearing the aforesaid Crl. Revision and appeals, the C ·High Court modified.the conviction of accused No. 24'under·· · section 148 IPC as being under section 147 IPC. Accused nos. 1, 5 to 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 26 and 28 to 31 were awarded

different punishment for different offences, however, maximum punishment remained two years as all the sentences were D directed to run conc.urrently. Conviction and sentence of death against accused Nos.

2 to 4 was confirmed by the High Court along with all other sentences under different heads. 14. Hence, these seven appeals. 15. Shri Sushil Kumar and Shri Udai U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for all these appellants, have submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant any trial. The case of the prosecution had been inherently improbable. There had been material. contradictions in the statements of witnesses in respect of the involvement of the accused and the nature of offences committed by them. The inquest reports were not consistent with the charge-sheets. Confessional statements made by some of the accused before the police, could not be G relied upon nor read as a whole in the court, as it is not permissible in law. The reading of the full text thereof, had materially prejudiced the mind of the court.Two separate FIRs, i.e., in respect of Crime No.188/2000 and 190/2000 could not be clubbed, resulting in one consolidated charge sheet. All the (2010] 10 S.C.R.

A accused had been charged by the Salem Court even for the offence under Section 188 IPC. In this respect, as no complaint had been filed by the competent officer whose prohibitory order had been violated, the charge could not have been framed. In any case, as it was not permissible for the trial court to frame B any charge under Section 188 IPC in absence of any written complaint by the public servant concerned, the genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful and the appellants become entitled to the benefit of doubt. Further, cases under Section 188 l.P.C. are triable by the Magistrate. In this case, it has been c tried by the Sessions Court. Such a course has caused great prejudice to the appellants. The statements made by the

witnesses particularly, by Dr. Latha (PW.1), Akila (PW.2), P. Kandasamy, Driver (PW.4) and N. Jagannathan, Cleaner (PW. 5), were full of contradictions and could not be relied upon. D Identification of the accused was on the basis of the

photographs taken and published by the media. C. Muniappan (A,.4) was arrested on 3rd February, 2009, ir:i respect of some other case and, therefore, his arrest shown on 7th February, 2009, was only an act of jugglery. The Forensic Report did not support the case of the prosecution that kerosene oil or petrol E had been put to set the bus ablaze. Some of the most material witnesses of the prosecution, like B. Kamal (PW.86), turned hostile, thus could not be relied upon.

16. Four different versions have been given by the different F witnesses disclosing the genesis of the main incident. First, as revealed by the complaint lodged by C. Ramasundaram (PW.87), the incident occurred at 3.30 p.m. on 2.2.2000. According to the complaint, 20 persons named in the F.l.R. armed with wooden sticks and iron rods, shouted slogans G and caused damage to the bus. They threatened the girl

students, who were travelling in the bus, with dire consequences. Nedu (A.2) and Madhu (A.3) brought the petrol and sprinkled the same inside the bus as well as on the platform. D .K. Rajendran (A.1) ordered that no one should be H allowed to get down from the bus and threatened that the bus C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 289

[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.] will be set on fire along with the inmates. Immediately, both Nedu (A.2) and Madhu (A.3) set the bus on fire with match sticks. Suddenly, the fire engulfed the entire bus and all the accused ran away from the scene. Some girls were trapped

inside the bus and charred to death. C. Muniappan (A.4) was not named in the first version. The second version is as per the evidence of P. Kandasamy (PW.4), driver of the vehicle and N. Jagannathan (PW.5), Cleaner. According to them, the incident occurred on 2.2.2000, wherein, two persons came on a motor bike and

stopped in front of the bus. One of them sprinkled the petrol through left side window and set the bus on fire and went away on the motorbike. The third version has been as revealed by the Report

(Ex.D.14) submitted by P. Kandasamy (PW.4), Driver, dated 7.2.2000, according to which, two persons came on a motor bike and stopped in fro.nt of the bus. One of them sprinkled petrol through ~he left ~ide window and set the bus on fire. The fourth version is based on the Report (Ex.D.12), dated 6.3.2000, by Dr. Latha (PW.1 ), according to which, when the bus was parked, at about 2.25 p.m., after two minutes thereof, one person poured the petrol on the front seats and set the bus on fire.

All the aforesaid versions are contradictory to each other. Thus, the case of prosecution is not trustworthy. Thus, in view of the above, appeals deserve to be allowed. 17. Per contra, Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel

appearing for the State, has tried to defend tbe prosecution's case submitting that the contradictions were trivial in nature. He has submitted that framing of charges under Section 188 IPC in absence of written complaint of the public servant concerned, could not be fatal to the prosecution's case. The entire

prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of improperly framing the charges under Section 188 l.P.C. Clubbing the two crimes, i.e., 188/2000 and 190/2000 did not cause any prejudice to any of the accused. Both the crimes were found to be parts ,of the same'incident. The court has to examine the facts' Jn. a proper petspeCtive where the said ghastly cri.me had beeh co1T1mitted, where three university girl studentsSt()O~ roaste~f anq 18 girl. students suffered burn. injurjes, At]he~initial stage,' the investigation was conducted by Sh ti·. S}iarimuga!ah ·(PW.116), 'as the Inspector, Shri

Vilvaranimurligari (PW.119) was on court duty on 2.2.2000. Thus; PW .119 took over the investigation after being free from c the court duty.· 'Considering the gravity of the offences, the . investigation Was,handed over to the CBCID, thus, the change of Investigating Officer was' inevitable. The Test Identification Parade was conducted by the experienced Judicial Officer in accordance with law and there was no haste in conducting the same. There is no rule of law that deposition of a hostile witness is to be discarded in toto. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

18. We have considered the rival submissions made by. learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. E Charges under Section 188 IPC: 19. Section 195 Cr.PC reads as under:

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence – (1) No Court shall take cognizance –

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is

administratively subordinate;" 20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 291 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to committhe same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision i$ to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court la9~s competence. to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated

therein. The legislative intent behind such/a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity ~c:>f disposition and to save the time of the criminal c courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule

contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or

person. Other provisions in the Cr.PG like sections 196 arid 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some requirements are complied with, the court shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of

Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh, (1996} 3 SCC 533; State of Punjab v. Raj Singh & Anr., (199~} 2 SCC 391; K. Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors., (2005} 7 SCC 352; and Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2119).

21 ~ The test of whether there is evasion or non-compliance of Section 195 Cr.PC or not, is whether the 'tacts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for Which a complaint of the court or of a public servant is required. In Basir-ul-Haq & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293; and

Durgacharan Naik & Ors v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1775, this Court held that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of IPC, though in truth and substanqe, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195 Cr.PC. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by mis- describing it or by putting a wrong label on it.

22. In M.S. Ah/awat v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 168, this Court considered the matter at length and held as under: " …. Provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any

c of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section." (Emphasis added) 23. In Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493, this Court while dealing with thi_s issue D observed as under :

"7 … Section 190 of th~ Code empowers "any magistrate of the first class" -to take cognizance of "any offence" upon receiving a co·mplaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195

restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the general right of a person to move the court with a complaint to that extent curtailed. It is a well-recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general

jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise." (Emphasis supplied) 24. In Dau/at Ram v_ State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206,

this Court considered the nature of the provisions of Section G 195 Cr.PC. In the said case, cognizance had been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This Court held as under:

'The cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] assumed by the court without the complaint in writing of A the public servant, namely, the Tahsildar in this case. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the

conviction cannot be maintained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside." (Emphasis . B added) 25. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized

to the effect that there must be a complaint by the pubic servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the ·cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.

26. Leam~d counsel for the appellants have submitte~ that no charge could have been framed under Section 1'88· IPC,in the absence of awritten complaint by the officer authorised for that purpose, the conviction under Section 188 IPC is not

sustainable. More so, it falsifies the very genesis of the case of the prosecution as the prohibitory orders had not been violated, no subsequent incident could occur. Thus, entire prosecution case falls.

27. Undoubtedly, the law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence under Section 188 IPC, unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent Public Servant. In the instant case, no such complaint had ever been filed. In such an eventuality and taking into account the settled legal principles in this regard, we are of the view that it was not permissible for the trial Court to frame a charge under Section 188 IPC. However, we do not agree with the further submission that

absence of a complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC falsifies the genesis of the prosecution's case and is fatal to the entire prosecution case. There is ample evidence on record to show that there was a prohibitory order; which had been issued by the competent officer one day before; it had been given due publicity and had been brought to the notice of the public at large; it has been violated as there is no denial even by the accused persons that there was no 'Rasta Roko Andolan' .

Unfortunately, the agitation which initially started peacefully turned ugly and violent when the public transport vehicles were subjected to attack and damage. In such an eventuality, we hold that in case the charges under Section 188 IPC are quashed, it would by no means have any bearing on the case of the

c prosecution, so far as the charges for other offences are concerned. 28. The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 could not be clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple reason that if the D cases are considered, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents

occurred, taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductorStcleaners of the vehicles involved in the fir5t incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram V.A.O., (PW.87), we

E reach the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been

lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge sheet could not be filed (See : T. T. Antony v. State of Kera/a & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181). Test Identification Parade :

29. In Lal Singh & Ors v. State of UP., AIR 2004 SC 299, G this Court held that the court must be conscious of the fact that the witnesses should have sufficient opportunity to see the accused at the time of occurrence of the incident. In case the witness has ample opportunity to see the accused before the identification parade is held, it may adversely affect the trial and C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 295

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] in that case, the evidence as a whole is to be considered. The prosecution should take precautions and should establish before the Court that right from the day of his arrest, the accused was kept "baparda" so as to rule out the possibility of his face being seen while in police custody.

30. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420, this Court held that the object of conducting Test Identification Parade is to enable witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them in connection with commission of crime and to satisfy investigating authorities that suspect is really the person whom witnesses had seen in connection with said

occurrence. It furnishes an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines, in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. Therefore, the Test Identification Parade is primarily meant D for investigation purposes. (vide Ma/khan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 2669; Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v.

State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 667; and Jarnai/ Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719). But the position would be entirely different when the accused or culprit who stands trial has been seen a number of times by the witness, as it may do away with the necessity of identification parade. Where the accused has been arrested in presence of the witness or accused has been shown to the witness or even his photograph has been shown by the

Investigating Officer prior to Test Identification Parade, holding an identification parade in such facts and circumstances remains inconsequential. (vide Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh

& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1922; Lalli@ Jagdeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 666; Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Kamataka, (2004) 3 SCC 106; Maya Kaur Baldevsingh Sardar & Anr. v. State of

Maharashtra, (2007) 12 pCC 654; and Aslam @ Deewan v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 9 SCC 227). 31. In Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 sec 512, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in 0. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4965, and held t!Jat if the photograph of the accused has been shown to the witness before the Test Identification Parade, the identification itself looses its purpose. If the suspect is available for identification or for video ·identification, the photograph should never be shown to the witness.

32. Holding the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, yet it may be used for the C purpose of corroboration; for believing that a person brought befo're the Court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime. However, the Test Identification Parade, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be

D sustained. It is a rule of prudehce which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant. (Vide State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj AIR 1999 SC 3916).

33. In Mui/a & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 E SCC 508, this Court placed reliance on Matru @ Girish Chandra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1050; and Santokh Singh v. /zhar Hussain & Anr., AIR 1973 SC 2190 and observed as under:-

"The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified

the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by witnesses in Court. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. entitling the accused to demand that an identificatio!l parade should be held at or before the inquiry of the trial. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused ·at an

C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 297 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court." 34. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569,

a Constitution Bench of this Court has suo moto examined the validity of Section 22 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and held that: . "If the evidence regarding 'the identification on the basis of a photograph is to be held to have the sarre value as

the evidence of a test identification parade, we feel that · gross injustice to the detriment of the persons suspected c may result". This Court, thus, struck down the provision of Section 22 of the said Act.

35. The said judgment was· considered by this Court in Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, AIR 1999 SC 2562, and the Court observed that in the said case, the evidence of a witness regarding identification of a proclaimed offender involved in a terrorist case was in issue. The courts below had taken a view that

evidence by showing photographs must have the same value as evidence of a Test Identification Parade. The Court distinguished the aforesaid case on facts. The Court further held that the court must bear in mind that in a case where the accused is not a proclaimed offender and the person who had taken the photographs was making deposition before the court was being examined by the prosecution as a witness, and he identified the accused in the court, that may be treated as a substantive evidence. However, courts should be conscious of the fact that during investigation, the photograph of the accused was shown to the witness and he identified that person as a one whom he saw at the relevant time.

36. Thus, it is evident from the above, that the Test Identification Parade is a part of the investigation and is very useful in a case where the accused are not known before-hand A to the witnesses. It is used only to corroborate the evidence recorded in the court. Therefore, it is not substantive evidence. The actual evidence is what is given by the witnesses in the court. The Test Identification Parade provides for an assurance that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction and it B enables the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them at the time of commission of offence. The accused should not be

shown to any of the witnesses after arrest, and before holding the Test Identification Parade, he is required to be kept c "baparda". 37. In the Test Identification Parades held in the Jail, Nedu (A.2) was identified by P. Kandasamy (PW.4); N. Jagannathan (PW.5); G. Gayathiri (PW.11); N. Thilagavathi (PW.13); and S. Anitha (PW.14). Madhu (A.3) was identified by Dr. Latha

D (PW.1); and Akila (PW.2). C. Muniappan (A.4) was identified by N. Jagannathan (PW.5); S. Anitha (PW.14); and B. Kamal (PW.86). · 38. In the court, Nedu (A.2) was identified by P.

E Kandasamy (PW.4); Jaganathan (PW.5); G. Gayathiri (PW.11); Thilagavathi (PW.13); and Anitha (PW-14). Madhu (A.3) was identified by Dr. Latha (PW.1 ); Akila (PW.2); Jaganathan (PW.5); G. Gayathiri (PW.11); and Suganthi (PW.12). C.

Muniappan (A.4) was identified by Kandasamy (PW.4); Jaganathan (PW.5); and Anitha (PW.14). 39. Thus, it is evident that all the accused for whom Test Identification Parades were conducted were identified by some of the witnesses in the jail. They were also identified by some of the eye witnesses/injured witnesses in the court.

Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants raised an objection that the entire proceedings of identification on 22.2.2000 had been concluded within a short span of 2 hours and 25 minutes. Eighteen witnesses were there, having three rounds each. Therefore, one round was

H completed in three minutes, i.e., the Test Identification Parade C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 299 [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.] was conducted in full haste and thus, could not be treated to be a proper identification.

40. It is evident from the evidence of Shri Kalaimathi, Judicial Magistrate (PW.89), who conducted the Test Identification Parade, that all the witnesses had reached the Central Prison, Salem, before 10.30 a.m. All preparations/ arrangements had been made in advance by the Jail

authorities as per direction of the said officer. Arrangements of standing of the accused along with other inmates in jail of the same height and complexion had already been made. There had been no haste or hurry on the part of Shri Kalaimathi, Judicial Magistrate (PW.89) to conclude the proceedings. More so, for reasons best known to the defence, no question had been asked to the said Judicial Magistrate (PW.89) in his

cross-examination as to how he could conclude the said proceedings within such a short span of time. Thus, the submission is not worth consideration. 41. In court, B. Kamal (PW.86) did not support the case

ofthe prosecution as he deposed that during the identification he was forced by the police to identify C. Muniappan (A.4) by showing his. photograph only. He was declared hostile.

42. The trial Court and the High Court have considered the issue elaborately and discussed the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in the court, along with the fact of identification by the witnesses in the Test Identification Parades. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that identification of A.2 to A.4 by the witnesses, if examined, in conjunction with the evidence of the Judicial Magistrate, R. Kalaimathi, (PW.89) and his reports, particularly, the Exh. P.137 and P.142, leave no room for doubt regarding the involvement of A.2 to A.4 in the crime. We do not find any cogent reason to take a view

contrary to the same. Not supporting the prosecution's case by 8. Kamal (PW.86) would not tilt the balance of the case in favour of the appellants. 43. Serious issues have been raised by learned senior

[2010) 10 S.C.R. counsel appearing for the appellants, submitting that inquest report was defective as there has been much irregularity in the inquest itself. Undoubtedly, three Investigating Officers, namely, T. Shanmugaiah, Police Inspector (PW.116); S. Palanimuthu

(PW.121); and John Basha (PW.122) had conducted the B investigation at the initial stage. The occurrence was so ugly and awful that the I.Os. had conducted the investigation under great anxiety and tension. The seizure memos were also

prepared in the same state of affairs. Therefore, when the investigation had been conducted in such a charged c atmosphere, some irregularities were bound to occur. There is ample evidence on record to show that after burning of the University bus, when the students came to know that three girls had been charred and large number of girl students had suffered . burn injuries, they became so violent that they damaged the ambulance which had been brought to take bodies of the

deceased girls for conducting autopsy. The State Authorities, a~er keeping all these factors in mind anq realizing that the ·investigation had not been conducted in proper manner, had taken a decision to transfer t.he investigation to the CBCID. E Therefore, the irregularities committed in the investigation by the earlier I. Os. has too little relevance on the merits of the case. The evidence collected by the said three I.Os. was not worth placing reliance on and has rightly been not relied upon by the subsequent Investigating Officer.

44. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the 1.0. and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground G for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or H omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investig~tion, there C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 301

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed t<? depend solely on · the probity of investigation. (Vide Chandra Kanth Lakshmi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 220; Kamel Singh v.

State of Madhya Pradesh, (1995) 5 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1850; Paras Yadav v. c State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 644; State of Kflrnataka v. K. Yai'appa Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 185; Amar Singh v. Ba/winder

Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 1051; and Ram Bali v. State of UP., AIR 2004 SC 2329). Arrest of A-4 45. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel has raised

the issue vehemently that arrest of C. Muniappan (A.4) is totally false. However, the evidence on record reveals that he was arrested at 1.30 a.m. on 3.2.2000, as is evident from the

evidence of D. Poongavanam (PW.108), according to which when he was attending patrol duty along with other police officials on the highway from Dharmapuri to Tirupathur, near P. Mottupatti lake bridge, he got information that some one was present beneath the bridge. Thus, the said witness went to the place along with the other officers and he was taken into police custody in Crime No.115/2000 of Mathikonepalayam Police

Station under .Section 151 Cr.P.C. read with Section 7(1)(A) of C.L. Act, and thus he was sent to jail. He had been released on bail on 9.2.2000 and the 1.0. had been searching for him and he was arrested at New Bus Stand, Salem, where the

Dharmapuri bus was to be parked, by P. Krishnaraj (PW.109). He tendered a confessional statement which was recorded in presence of Revenue Inspector, Manickam and Village Administrative Officer, C. Ramasundaram (PW.87).

(2010) 10 S.C.R. There has been no cross-examination independently on behalf of A.4 on this issue. Even in cross-examination on behalf of other accused nothing has been elicited qua irregularity or improbability of the arrest of A.4. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disbelieve the arrest of C. Muniappan (A.4) as shown B by the 1.0.

46. So far as the issue of damage to the buses and the main incident of setting the bus on fire are concerned, both the courts have proceeded on the finding, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, that there was no common object C between Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @Ravindran

(A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) and the other accused regarding murder of the students and burning of the bus. Therefore, all of them had been convicted under different sections. However, the High Court directed the sentence to run concurrently so far as D A.1, A.5 to A.14, A.16 to A.21, A.23 to A.26 and A.28 to A.31 are concerned. There has been sufficient material to show

participation in- the "Rasto Roko Andolan" and indulging in the incident of damaging the local route bus. Both courts have recorded the concurrent findings of fact in this regard. We have also gone through the evidence. Their presence is established on the spot and we do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded in that respect. We do not find any material on record, which may warrant interference with the said findings.

47. So far as A.2 to A.4 (Nedu, Madhu and C. Muniappan respectively) are concerned, the Trial Court recorded the following findings of fact:- "Accused 2 and 3 had poured petrol into the bus through

the front door steps and set fire to it resulting in the death of the abovesaid three students and causing injuries to some of the students. Knowing that students are inside the bus, they had set fire to the bus as stated above, knowing fully well that some of the students or all the inmates of the bus would meet their death inside the bus. Nobody could

C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 303 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] deny this fact. There was clear intention on the part of A2 and A3 to kill the inmates of the bus and thus A2 and A3

have murdered three girl students with the intention of killing them. Hence A2 and A3 are liable to be punished u/s 302 IPC (3 counts) ……………. Presence of the 4th accused in the occurrence place has been amply proved.

Though the fact that he gave matchbox to A2 to set fire to the bus had not been established, yet the fact that he aided A2 and A3 to come to the occurrence place in his motor cycle after the occurrence is over, is clearly proved,

because he was the person who drove the motor cycle and thus aided A2 and A3 in the commission of the offence u/ s 4 of the TNP (POL) Act and 302 IPC and 114 IPC could be invoked in this case since as per Section 107 IPC vide

third definition whoever intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of the thing is an offender as defined in 107 IPC. Hence, A4 Muniappan has committed the offences punishable u/~ 4 of TNP (POL) Act r/w 114

IPC and 302 IPC r/w 114 IPC (3 counts). Further, the High Court after appreciating the evidence on record found that :- "The identification of the A2 to A4 by the witnesses coupled with the evidence of the learned Magistrate PW-

89 and the reports of PW89 produced in Exs. P-137 and P-142 would go a long way to show that A-2 to A-4 were involved in the crime as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses." From the record, it is evident that so far as A2 to A4 are concerned, their involvement in the incident has been

substantiated by the evidence of PWs.61,62,63,97&99 G (Santhamurthy, Madhaiyan, G. Manickam, Udayasuriyan and R. Karunanidhi respectively) as some of those said witnesses had identified D.K. Rajendran, Nedu, Madhu, C. Muniappan, D.K. Murugesan, D.A. Dowlath Basha, (A.1 to A.6 respectively), K. Ravi (A.9), Sampath (A.13), K. Chandran (A.21), R. Chellakutty (A.22), K. Mani (A.24), K. Veeramani (A.30) & Udayakumar

(A.31). All the witnesses have also deposed that some of the members had been in the demonstration while K. Mani (A.24) damaged the Hosur bus stand. M. Kaveri (A.23) prevented the people from dousing the fire.

48. In view of the fact that Udayasuriyan (PW.97) and Ft Karunanidhi (PW.99) had not been dis-believed by th~ court below and their evidence was found natural and trustworthy as they did not falsely implicate all the accused for causing damages to the bus and they were local and independent

C witnesses and knowing some of the accused persons; the High Court held as under: "Though, both the witnesses have spoken about the demonstration and implicated most of the accused, they

have spoken only about Nedu (A.2) for having set fire to the Route No.7-8 town bus and there is absolutel~o material to show as to i,oyhy both PWs 97 & 99 sh.ould ' falsely implicate Nedu (A.2). Equally, for the same reason, the implication of M. Kaveri (A.23) for having prevented the persons in and around the bus from dousing the fire also

cannot be dis-believed. There is ample evidence to show that Nedu (A.2) and M. Kaveri (A.23) were part of the demonstrators as has been stated by some of the witnesses. In fact, PW.62 stated that even when he saw

the demonstrators sitting on the road, he also saw the damaged buses parked nearby. None of the witnesses have implicated any of the accused except Nedu (A.2) and M. Kaveri (A.23) for causing damage to the buses.

Though, PW.97 implicated K. Mani (A.24) as well for causing damage to the bus, A.24 was not spoken to by PW.99. In the absence of any corroboration, it cannot be held that K. Mani (A.24) also damaged the bus.

49. Therefore, the presence of the accused had also been established by press and media persons who were p~ent at the scene of the occurrence, as well as by tfle complainant, and C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 305

[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.] those persons had not named all the accused for setting the bus on fire and only few of them had been involved. But as the said_ persons were not having any arm/weapon, the offence of Section 148 IPC was not found sustainable and thus, their

conviction under Section 148 IPC has been rightly set aside. Some of the accused had been convicted under Section 147 s IPC. 50. It has been submitted that the witnesses PWs. 1, 2 and 4 have not disclosed the identities of the accused at the initial stage of investigation. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon for conviction of A.2 to A.4. However, it has been proved that there was no initial investigation and therefore the question of disclosing identity of the accused to Shri Shanmugaiah

(PW.116), who had done the initial investigation, could not arise. More so, as has been mentioned hereinabove, the initial investigation was conducted in a panicked situation, therefore, the government thought it proper to scrap it out and hand over to a higher officer through the CBCID. The presence of A.2 to A.4 .with the other accused at the place of agitation stands established.

51. R. Karunanidhi (PW.99) had spoken aboutA.2 to A.4. He is an advocate and belongs to Dharamapuri. He has deposed that Nedu (A.2) had set the fire to the Route No.7-B town bus. He has also corroborated the evidence of

Udayasuriyan (PW.97) that while the bus was in flames, some persons tried to douse the fire but they were prevented by M. Kaveri (A.23). Nedu (A.2) remained present in the earlier

occurrence as well as the subsequent occurrence. 52. We cannot ignore one more fact, namely, that C. Muniappan (A.4) had kept the engine of the motor cycle (M.0.5) running only to escape from the scene of occurrence alongwith Nedu (A.2) and Madhu (A.3) after the occurrence. The said fact would also indicate the mind of the accused to commit the

offence and to flee from the scene of occurrence to avoid the clutches of law. But for PWs 1, 2, 4 & 5 and some other students A who became alert immediately after the bus was set on fire, the consequence could have been disastrous and more deaths could have occurred.

53. P. Kandasamy, the bus driver (PW.4) has deposed that at the time of incident, a bike coming from the right side 8 of the bus stopped near the left side headlight at a distance of about 12 ft. Three persons were riding on the said motor cycle. Two persons who were sitting on the rear seat of the motor cycle came towards the bus and each of them was carrying a yellow coloured can. One of them came to the left side of the bus and C sprinkled liquid contained in the can inside the bus through the first window shutter. The other poured the liquid from the can through the second window. From the smell, he could

understand that they had sprinkled petrol. Dr. Latha (PW.1) and Akila (PW.2) begged those persons and pleaded not to do any D harm. At that time there was a shout "set fire on them, then only they will realise". Students started coming out of the bus from the front entrance. The bus was put to fire immediately. The persons who poured the petrol proceeded towards the

motor cycle and escaped. 54. P. Kandasamy (PW.4) has identified Nedu (A.2) and C. Muniappan (A.4) in the court and pointed out that C. Muniappan (A.4) was the person who was sitting on the motor cycle, keeping engine running at the time of occurrence. He also disclosed that the number of the maroon coloured motor F cycle was TN-29-C-2487 and identified the vehicle parked outside the court. In cross-examination again and again he was asked large number of questions, but his deposition remained trustworthy throughout.

55. The deposition of N. Jagannathan, cleaner (PW.5) corroborated the evidence of P. Kandasamy (PW.4). He identified A.2 to A.4. He also identified the motor cycle but could not identify the colour and registration number. He has identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade. He has H denied the suggestion that he had ever been shown any

C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.) photograph of either of A.2 to A.4. He deposed that A.2 to A.4 were the persons who sprinkled the petrol inside the bus and he had given a version of events explaining how the girl

students got burn injuries and some of them died because they could not come out of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he could identify A.2 to A.4 as he had been shown their photographs.

56. Dr. Latha (PW.1) had deposed that she had seen the man who was pouring the petrol. She had identified A.3 in the court as the man who sprinkled petrol in the bus. She deposed that it was A.3 who had shouted "set fire to all, then only they will realize" and at that time there was a fire from the front left side.

57. Akila (PW.2) had given same version and corroborated the evidence of Dr. Latha (PW.1), P. Kandasamy (PW.4) and N. Jagannathan (PW.5) and deposed that petrol was sprinkled near the seat which .was occupied by PW.5. She identified

Madhu (A.3) as the person who sprinkled the petrol and stated that another person· lit the match stick and threw it in the bus and the bus was burnt into flames. Three girl students were charred to death.

58. Preetha (PW.8), a B.Sc. 2nd year student, aged 19 years had deposed that she was sitting on the double seat just before the front entrance on the window side. A man sprinkled petrol from a yellow can which he was holding on the seat in front of her seat through the window shutter. At the same time another person came and poured petrol inside the bus through the window shutter which was near the first seat. PWs. 1 and 2 begged them not to harm students. However, in the

meantime, the front side of the bus caught fire. She had suffered some burn injuries over her left foot. She had identified Madhu (A.3) in the court as a person who had sprinkled petrol. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing, falsely or identified the accused D.K. Rajendran (A.1) and Nedu (A.2) as she had been tutored by the police.

[2010) 10 S.C.R. 59. Gayathri G. (PW.11 ), another injured witness identified 'Nedu (A.2) and Madhu (A.3) in the Court. She explained how the petrol was sprinkled by A.2 anci A.3 and how PWs. 1 and 2 begged them not td harm the girls. However, at the same· time, there was fire at. the place where the petrol had been B poured. She denied any suggestion made by the defence that she was deposing falsely or she had identified any of the

accused by showing their photographs. 60. R. Suganthi (PW.12) another injured witness had given the same version. She had identified Madhu (A.3) in the court C as a person who had sprinkled the petrol inside the bus and N. Thilagavathi (PW.12) another injured witness corroborated the genesis of the case as given by the other witnesses. She identified Nedu (A.2) in the court as a person who had sprinkled the petrol and denied all suggestions made by the defence. 61. S. Anitha (PW.14) supported the prosecution version

thoroughly and stat~d that two persons came to the front of th~ bus and sprinkled the petrol. She had identified A.2 to A.4 in . Test Identification.Parade denying all suggestions made by the defence.

62. A large number of injured witnesses (students) were examined. They supported the prosecution case but did not identify any person either in the Test Identification Parade or in the Court. M. Kalaivani, M. Krithika, G. Gayathiri and R.

F Suganthi (PWs.9 to 12), R. Banuchitra, Chitra, C. Susma, S. Thilagam, P.T. Sutha, M. Vasantha Gokilam, R. Abirami, P. Geetha and S. Gayathiri (PWs.15 to 23), K. Sumathi, M. Deivani and N. Anbuselvi (PWs. 26 to 28) got injuries, and were treated in the hospital. They were examined in the 'court. Their G seating position in the bus had been such that they could not see as who had sprinkled the petrol in the bus. They could see the motorcycle or C. Muniappan (A.4) on the scene. They did not depose anything in this regard.·

63. R. Maruthu (PW.51 ), photographer, deposed that he H was contacted by Dowlat Basha (A.6) to cover the "Road Roko C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 309 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Agitation" at lllakkiampatti in stills and video. He reached there A on a motorcycle. There he found D. K. Rajendran (A.1) engaged in an agitation with four or five persons. They were raising slogans. He photographed and videographed the spot of the

agitation. He deposed that along with (A.1 ), Muthu (A.8), Ravi (A.9), A.P. Murugan (A.11) and Vadivelu (A.12) were also present there. Their photographs and negatives were exhibited in the court. He also photographed the burning bus. He reached the spot when the bus was burning. Students were shouting. The bus was full of black smoke. Some persons were trying to break open the rear side glass panes and some were dragging c the girls from the rear side shutters. The fire spread from the front portion and engulfed the whole bus to the rear and he had been taking photographs continuously. These photographs

were exhibited as Ex.P.78 and Ex.P.80. He watched the video prepared by him in the court and identified the same. In the cross~examination, he denied knowing the accused persons, particularly, Madhu (A.3), Velayutha!ll (A.7), Sampath (A.13), Selvam (A.26), Selvaraj (A.28) and Veeramani (A.30).

However, they were shown in the ·photographs taken by him. He was declared hostile. 64. The shirt (M.0.4), which was worn by Nec:lu (A.2) at the time of incident, had been identified by most of the eye-

witnesses in the court. It is stated that this shirt belonged to A.2. 65. In Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230, this Court disapproved the exhibiting and reading of confessional statement of the accused before the police as a whole before the court, as it had not been brought on record in a manner contemplated by law. The Court held.as under:

"Law does not envisage taking on record the entire confession by making it an exhibit incorporating both the admissible or inadmissible part thereof together. We have to point out that only that part of confession is admissible, which could be leading to the recovery of dead body and/

[2010] 10 S.G.R. or recovery of articles ………………………….. ; the confession proceeded to state even the mode and manner in which they allegedly killed. It should not have been done. It may influence the mind of the Court."

66. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance on the judgments in Pu/ukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67; the State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1691; and Anter Singh v. State

of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2865. c 67. Thus, it is evident from the above that only the admissible part of extra-judicial confessional statement can be exhibited. The statement as a whole, if exhibited and relied upon by the prosecution, leads to the possibility of the court getting prejudiced against the accused. Thus, it has to be avoided.

68. In the instant case, as has rightly been pointed out by Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel that confessional statement of C. Muniappan (A.4) had been exhibited in the court in its full text. It was neither required or warranted nor was permissible. However, in view of the fact that there had been other sufficient material on record to show his involvement in the crime, we are of the opinion that full exhibition of the statement had not prejudiced the case against him.

Hostile Witness: 69. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as flostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as

G effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be. accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (vide Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar

Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State H of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848; and Khujji @ Surendra C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 311 [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853). 70. In State of UP. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2766, this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the

prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Batu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC

543; Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of C UP., AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraian Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 320; and Subbu Singh v. State,

(2009) 6 sec 462. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevarJt parts thereof which are admissible in lalJV, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.

In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW.86); and R. Maruthu (PW.51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law.

Some omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs have been pointed out by the learned cou1Jsel for the appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in nature. 71. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and

caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version [2010) 10 S.C.R.

A of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (vide Sohrab & Anr. v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR B 1985 SC 48; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753; State of Rajasthan v. Om P~kash

AIR 2007 SC 2257; Prithu @ Prithi Chand & Anr. v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 588; State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 626; and State v. c Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 151).

Death sentence 72. The guidelines laid down by this Court for awarding death sentence in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898, may be culled out as under: (a) The extreme penalty of death may be inflicted in

gravest cases of extreme culpability; (b)" While imposing death sentence the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime;

(c) Death sentence be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime; and (d) Extreme penalty can be imposed after striking the

balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances found in the case. Aggravating circumstances include: (a) If the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or

{b) If the murder involves exceptional depravity. Mitigating circumstances include: C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL l''ADU 313 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.) (a) That the offence was committed under the influence of A extreme mental or emotional disturbance;

(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death; (c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;

(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by ~vidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above; (e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the

accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence; (f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and (g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was

mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. 73. In Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957, this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh (supra) to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty, and stated that in these cases such a penalty should be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage rriust be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between

aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court further held that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration may be motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as:- (i)

Murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (ii) Murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, is

committed. (iii) Murder of an innocent child; a helpless woman, is committed. 74. In Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR C 2002 SC 1661, this Court referred to both these cases and held that death sentence may be warranted when the murder is

committed in an extremely brutal manner; or for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward, or cold blooded murder for D gains. Death sentence may also be justified:

"(i) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance, when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a faniily or a large number of persons or a particular caste, community, or locality are committed.

(ii) When the victim of murder is an innocent child or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-a- vis, whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the

community." (See also Atbir v. Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi, JT 2010 (8) SC 372). 75. In Mahesh v. State of M.P., AIR 1987 SC 1346, this G court deprecated the practice of taking a lenient view and not imposing the appropriate punishment observing that it will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the

extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. The court held that "To give a lesser punishment to H the appellants would be to render the justice system of this C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS . . v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

[DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.] country suspect. The common man will lose faith in the courts. · 1n such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon". (See also State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009. SC 391; and Sahdev

v. Jaibar@ Jai Dev & Ors., (2009) 11 SCC 798). In Bantu v. State of U. P., (2008) 11 SCC 113, this Court placing reliance on Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. AIR 1991 SC 1463, re-iterated the same view observing as under :

"Therefpre, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to c undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats.

It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the'.nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc." Thus, it is. evident that Criminal Lal\\' requires strict

adherence to the rule of proportionality in proViding punishment according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct keeping in mind the effect of not awarding just punishment on the society.

The "Rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co- existence of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and he indulged himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executed it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment

for such a ghastly crime. 76. Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception. Therefore, the Court must satisfy itself that death penalty would be the only punishment which can be meted out to a convict. The Court has to consider whether any other

punishment would be completely inadequate and what would be the mitigating and aggravating. circumstances in the case. Murder is always foul, however, the degree of brutality, A depravity and diabolic nature differ in each case.

Circumstances under which murders take place also differ from case to case and there cannot be a straitjacket formula for deciding upon circumstances under which death penalty must be awarded. In such matters, it is not only a nature of crime, B but the background of criminal, his· psychology, his social conditions, his mindset for committing offence and effect of imposing alternative punishment on the society are also relevant factors.

77. In the instant case, the girl students of the University, C while on tour had been the victims of a heinous crime at the tail end of their programme. The appellants may have had a grievance and a right of peaceful demonstration, but they cannot claim a right to cause grave inconvenience and humiliation to others, merely because a competent criminal court has handed D down a juaicial pronouncement that is not to their liking. A demonstration by the appellants which had started peacefully, ·took an ugly turn when the appellants started damaging public transport vehicles. Damaging the public'. transport vehicles did not satisfy them and the appellants became the law unto

E themselves. There had been no provocation of any kind by any person whatsoever. Some of the appellants had evil designs to cause damage to a greater extent so that people may learn a "lesson". In order to succeed in their mission, Nedu @

Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran(A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) went to the extent of sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting it on fire with the students still inside the bus. They were fully aware that the girls might not be able to escape, when they set the bus on fire. As it

happened, some of the girls did not escape the burning bus. G No provocation had been offered by any of the girls. Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) did not pay any heed to the pleas made. by Dr. Latha (PW1) and Akila (PW2), the teacher, to spare the girls. As a consequence of the actions of Nedu @

H Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. C. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 317 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] Muniappan (A.4), three girls stood to death and about 20 girls received burn injuries on several parts of their bodies. There can be absolutely no justification for the commission of such a brutal offence. Causing the death of three innocent young girls and causing burn injuries to another twenty is an act that shows the highest degree of depravity and brutality on the part of Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C.

Muniappan (A.4). The aggravating circumstances in the case of Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) are that this offence had been committed after previous planning and with extreme brutality. These murders involved exceptional depravity on the part of Nedu @

Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4). These were the murders of helpless, innocent, unarmed, young girl students in a totally unprovoked situation. No mitigating circumstances could be pointed to us, which would convince us to impose a lesser sentence on them. Their activities were not only barbaric but inhuman of the highest degree. Thus, the manner of the commission of the offence in the present case is extremely brutal, diabolical, grotesque and . E cruel. It is shocking to the collective conscience of society. We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the punishment of death sentence awarded to Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2),

Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) by the courts below. Their appeals are liable to be dismissed. So far as the other appellants are concerned, the maximum sentence to be served by them as per the Judgment

of the High Court is two years. Most of these appellants have already served more than 14 months of their sentence and they are presently on bail. The incident occurred on 2.2.2000, so more than ten and a half years have already elapsed since the .incident. These appellants have already suffered a lot. Thus, their sentences deserve to be reduced.

78. Before parting with this case, we would like totake note A of the fact that this crime occurred right in the middle of a busy city. Innocent girls trapped in a burning bus were shouting for help and only the male students from their University came to their rescue and succeeded in saving some of them. There

were large number of people including the shopkeepers, media B persons and on-duty police personnel, present at the place of the "Rasta Roko Andolan", which was very close to the place of the occurrence of the crime, and none of them considered it proper to help in their rescue. Even if the common man fails to respond to the call of his conscience, the police should not have c r_emained inactive. The so-called administration did not bother to find out why the police did not intervene and assist in the rescue of the girl students. It is clear that the so-called protectors of the society stood there and witnessed such a heinous crime being committed and allowed the burning of the bus and

roasting of the innocent children without being reprimanded for failing in their duty. If the common citizens and public officials present at the scene of the crime had done their duty, the death of three innocent young girls could have been prevented.

79. In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed. E So far as Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A.2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A.3) and C. Muniappan (A.4) are concerned, sentence of death imposed on them is confirmed and the same be

executed in accordance with law. However, in Criminal Appeal Nos 1632-34 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1482-1484 of 2008), the sentences are reduced as undergone. All of them are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. These criminal appeals

stand disposed of accordingly. R.P. Appeals disposed of.