(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 08.12.2023 in S.C.No.134 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Kumbakonam and set aside the same.)
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is filed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th & 7th accused (hereinafter respectively referred to as “the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th appellant” and collectively referred to as “the appellants”) seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Kumbakonam (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in S.C. No. 134 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”).
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted each of the appellants and sentenced them as tabulated below:
| Penal Provision | Imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 148 of IPC | Three (3) years Rigorous Imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment |
| 302 r/w. 120(B)of IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment |
| Period of detention already undergone by the appellant was ordered to be set off and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | ||
3.1. One Sakthivel (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the son of one Sangeetha (hereinafter referred to as “defacto complainant (P.W.1)”). The deceased and the defacto complainant (P.W.1) are residents of Ramakrishna Nagar, Mariyaman Kovil Road, Muthulampettai, Kumbakonam. The appellants were also residents of Muthulampettai, Kumbakonam.
3.2. On the eve of the festival, Diwali in the year 2018 i.e. on 04.11.2018, a quarrel arose at Mathulampettai between the deceased and the 1st & 2nd Appellant along side their friends Manobala and Kalidoss. During the said quarrel, the said individuals attacked the deceased with a billhook machete and thereby caused injuries to the deceased. Owing to the said injuries, the deceased took treatment at the Kumbakonam Medical College Hospital for ten days and following which the deceased was discharged home, where the deceased took rest for nearly a month. In respect of the incident, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) had hence preferred a complaint (Ex.P.32) with the respondent police following which a First Information Report (Ex.P.33) in Crime No. 270 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Section 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The 1st and 2nd appellants herein who are the accused in Crime No. 270 of 2018 had come out on bail.
3.3. While so, on 13.01.2019 at about 07.30 p.m., the appellants with a common intention to murder the deceased, went to the deceased’s house, took him near the MGR Statue situated at Ellaiyar Chetti Street under the pretext that they were willing to work out a compromise with him and attacked the deceased with a billhook machete (M.O.3) and iron pipes (M.O.3 & M.O.4) and thereby caused the death of the deceased. After murdering the deceased, the appellants discarded the body of deceased in a nearby empty septic tank and discarded the billhook machete (M.O.3) and the iron pipes (M.O.4 & M.O.5) in the bushes situated at the Aandipillayar Kovil.
3.4. On the next day morning i.e. 14.01.2019, at about 11.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant (P.W.1) had searched for the deceased, she found a crowd flocking near the drainage situated at Ellaiyar Chetti Street. Upon steering her way through the crowd, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) found the deceased lying dead with multiple injuries in the empty septic tank near the said drainage. Hence, she preferred a complaint (Ex.P.1) with the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.11), Kumbakonam West Police Station, who on receipt of the same, registered an FIR (Ex.P.13) in Crime No. 11 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of IPC and forwarded the case to the Inspector of Police (P.W.13), Kumbakonam West Police Station for investigation.
3.5. The Inspector of Police (P.W.13) took up the case for investigation on the same day and at about 1:00 p.m, he inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P15) in the presence of the independent witnesses i.e. Karthikraja (P.W.6) and Muthuvel (P.W.7). Thereafter, at 2.15 p.m. the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) recovered a blood stained stone (M.O.1) and an unstained stone (M.O.2) from the scene of occurrence under a Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P16) in the presence of the said independent witnesses.
3.6. On the same day i.e. 14.01.2019 the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) conducted an inquest in the presence of the independent witnesses Rameshkumar, Manikandan, Navaneethakrishnan, Sivakumar and Venkatraj (P.W.5) on the cause of death of the deceased at the occurrence place and prepared an Inquest Report (Ex.P17). He further recorded the statements of the said independent witnesses. After completion of the inquest, he forwarded the body of deceased along with a requisition through the Head Constable (P.W.12), Kumbakonam West Police Station to the Kumbakonam Government Hospital for conducting the postmortem examination. In furtherance of the said requisition, Dr. Rajeshwaran (P.W.8), conducted a postmortem examination and issued a Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) opining that the death of the deceased was caused due to the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased to his face, mouth and skull resulting in a hemorrhagic shock. After the postmortem, the Head Constable (P.W.12) handed over the body of the deceased to the relatives and thereafter sent the clothes (M.O.6 & M.O.7) to Forensic Lab after getting a requisition letter from the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. Based on the forensic examination, a Biological Report (Ex.P.30) and Serology Report (Ex.P.30) was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam opining that the biological material found was human blood and that the grouping test of the human blood was inconclusive. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police (P.W. 13) examined the defacto complainant (P.W.1), Rani (P.W.2), Sathiya (P.W.3) the sister of the deceased, Prathaban (P.W.4), Aravind (P.W.5), and recorded their respective statements.
3.7. Based on the statement of Prathaban (P.W.4), on 15.01.2019 at about 08.00 a.m. the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) arrested the 1st to 4th appellants and one Bharanidharan, the 6th accused, near the Tharasuram bus stand and enquired them. During the enquiry, the 1st & 3rd appellant and the said Bharanidaran, the 6th accused gave a voluntarily confession statement (Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20) in the presence of the independent witnesses i.e. Surendrakumar, the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) and Duraisamy. Based on the said confession statement (Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 & Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20), the billhook machete (M.O.3) and the iron pipes (M.O.4 & M.O.5) were recovered by the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) from the bushes situated at the Aandipillayar Kovil in the presence of the said independent witnesses under a Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.23). Thereafter, he examined the said independent witnesses and recorded their statements. Following which, the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) sent the 1st to 4th appellants and one Bharanidharan, the 6th accused for judicial remand and further on 16.01.2019, the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) arrested the 5th Appellant Rajagopal and sent him for remand. Finally, on 22.01.2019, the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) forwarded the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5), to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam under Form 95 (Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28).
3.8. On 30.01.2019, the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) examined the various official witnesses and recorded their statements. At this juncture, since the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) was transferred, he handed over the case bundles to his successor, the Inspector of Police (P.W.15), Kumbakonam West Police Station. The Inspector of Police (P.W.15) took over the investigation of the case on 01.04.2019 and examined one Dr. D. Sivakumar, the Scientific Officer who issued the aforesaid Biological Report (Ex. P.30) and further examined one Dr. Rajeshwaran (P.W.8) who issued the aforesaid Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) and recorded their respective statements.
3.9. Dr. D. Sivakumar conducted the forensic examination and issued a Biological Report (Ex.P.30) and thereafter sent the same for a grouping test. Upon completion of the grouping test, the said Biological Report (Ex.P.30) and Serology Report (Ex.P.31) was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam opining that the biological material found was human blood and that the grouping test of the human blood was inconclusive. Lastly, on 25.05.2019, the Inspector of Police (P.W. 15) completed the investigation and filed a final report against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 r/w. 120B of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No II, Kumbakonam.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of the said final report in PRC No. 19 of 2019. On appearance of the appellants and after complying with the provisions of 207 CrPC, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thanjavur. The case was taken up as SC 134 of 2019 and made over to the trial Court. After hearing the appellants, the Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for having committed the offences under Sections 148 and 302 r/w. 120B of IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the appellants, they pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to PW.15 and marked 33 exhibits as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.33 and 7 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same as false without offering any explanation whatsoever and they examined Karthik (D.W.1), the Reporter of the News Channel i.e. Captain TV and marked a pendrive (Ex.D1) containing the defacto complainant’s interview with Karthik (D.W.1).
6. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments on both sides, found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced them as tabulated at paragraph 2, supra, vide the impugned judgment and challenging the conviction and sentence, the instant criminal appeal has been filed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th & 7th accused i.e. the appellants.
7. Heard, Mr. Subash, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st and 4th appellants, Mr. Om Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd appellant and Mr. M. Karunanithi, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd appellant and Mr. M. Vivek, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th appellant. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned counsel are as follows:
7.1. The trial court failed to take into consideration the contradictions improvements and embellishments in the evidence of the witnesses.
7.2. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and when the prosecution has put forth a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove each and every link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove every link in the chain of circumstances put forth by them.
7.3. The trial court failed to take it into consideration the delay in forwarding the FIR (Ex.P.13) the statement of witnesses and the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5) to the judicial magistrate which creates a grave doubt with regards to the possibility of the appellants being falsely implicated in the present case and with regards to the possibility of tampering with the evidence to suit the case of the prosecution.
7.4. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses i.e. the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and Prathaban (P.W.4) who are said to have had last seen the appellants with the deceased prior to the alleged occurrence and their conduct after the occurrence are highly unnatural suspicious and doubtful and thereby the trial court ought not to have believed their evidence to convict the appellants.
7.5. Admittedly, there was previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased in respect of which a criminal case was pending. In such circumstances, the conduct of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) in allowing the deceased to go along with the appellants, late in the evening and not searching for him the whole night is totally unbelievable. Likewise, the evidence of Prathaban (P.W.4) having last seen the appellants and the deceased going together and later having seen the appellants alone returning in a panicky manner and his failure to report the same to defacto complainant (P.W.1) is also doubtful.
7.6. The incident is said to have occurred in a crowded locality surrounded by several houses. Hence, the non-examination of the residents of the locality creates a grave doubt and suspicion in the prosecution’s case.
7.7. The appellants by examining one Karthik (D.W.1), the Reporter of the News Channel i.e. Captain TV and by marking a pendrive (Ex.D1) containing a telecast available on “YOUTUBE” established that the defacto complainant (P.W.1) on the day of the occurrence had given an interview stating that 20 persons came from the 10 Feet Bridge Area and searched for the deceased and left the place threatening to do away with the deceased. The defacto complainant (P.W.1) had also admitted to have given such an interview. This aspect creates grave doubt in the prosecution’s case. The trial Court by ignoring the suspicious circumstances and by ignoring the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt has erred in convicting the appellant.
7.8. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants may be set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the prosecution has proved each and every link in the chain of circumstances by adducing cogent evidence. According to him, it is a case where on account of previous enmity the appellants have with a common intention taken the deceased from his house, murdered him and discarded the deceased’s body into the empty septic tank situated near the Ellaiyar Chetti Street drainage. The defacto complainant (P.W.1) has deposed that the appellants had taken the deceased with them under the pretext of attempting a compromise in the earlier case and further Prathaban (P.W.4) who was present near the place of occurrence has also deposed that at about 8.00 p.m. he had seen the appellants going with the deceased and thereafter returning without him in a panicky manner. The appellants were arrested and based on their confession the blood stained weapons were also recovered. Once the last seen theory stands proved by the prosecution, the appellants were expected to offer an explanation as to the circumstances under which the appellants had parted away from the company of the deceased. When no evidence is available to refute the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution, the trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellants. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
9. This Court gave its careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record, including the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
10. Admittedly, it is a case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, what is to be seen is, whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by letting in cogent evidence and whether the trial court is right in appreciating the evidence on record to convict and sentence the appellants.
11. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the defacto complainant (P.W.1) deposed had that a quarrel arose at Mathulampettai between the deceased and the 1st & 2nd Appellant earlier on the eve of Deepavali and that during the said quarrel, the 1st & 2nd Appellant attacked the deceased with a billhook/ machete and thereby caused serious injuries to the deceased in respect of which a previous case came to be registered against the appellants. Further, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) deposed that in the late evening, on the day of the occurrence, the appellants had come to her house and under the pretext of resolving the preexisting dispute with the deceased, they had taken the deceased along with them and that since, the deceased had not returned till the next day morning, she went in search of the deceased only to find him lying dead with multiple injuries in the empty septic tank situated near the Ellaiyar Chetti Street drainage. The conduct of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) in permitting the deceased to go along with the appellants in the night and not searching for her son the whole night, that too, when, there was a preexisting dispute between them, is highly doubtful and unnatural, More especially, the conduct becomes even more doubtful, in light of the houses of the appellants being in close vicinity to that of her house.
12. Likewise, it is seen from the evidence on record that Prathaban (P.W.4) deposed that he was present near the place of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. on 13.01.2019 and that he had seen the appellants taking the deceased with them and thereafter returning without the deceased in a panicky manner. Prathaban (P.W.4) further deposed that he knew very well about the previous occurrence wherein the 1st and 2nd Appellant brutally attacked the deceased with a billhook machete and in such circumstances, the conduct of Prathaban (P.W.4) in not informing the police and the defacto complainant (P.W.1) who is also known to him about what he had seen immediately after the occurrence creates a dent in his evidence and the prosecution’s case.
13. When, Prathaban (P.W.4) has deposed that he was well aware of the previous occurrence, he ought have immediately informed someone as to seeing the appellants go alongside the deceased and return without the deceased in panicky manner. But however, during the cross examination, Prathaban (P.W.4) categorically admits that he has not disclosed the same to any one and that he has disclosed the same only to the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) on the later half of 14.01.2019. Therefore, Prathaban’s (P.W.4) failure to disclose having seen the deceased with the appellants to anyone other than the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) is odd and unnatural.
14. Further, during the cross examination, Prathaban (P.W.4) has also admitted that he stumbled upon the deceased’s body at about 10:30 AM on 14.02.2019. That being so, he ought to have at least then informed the defacto complainant (P.W.1) as to what he had witnessed the previous night. However, he has chosen not to disclose the same to any one and has suspiciously remained at the place of occurrence from 10:30 AM till the later half of 14.01.2019 for the Inspector of Police (P.W.13) to record his statement during the investigation. Therefore, Prathaban’s (P.W.4) evidence is either a colored or a concocted version.
15. On the other hand, from the perusal of the evidence on record, it ascertainable that although, the defacto complainant (P.W.1) is said to have given a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.11) at about 12:00 PM on 14.01.2019, the Head Constable (P.W.10) is said to have handed over the FIR (Ex.P13) to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam only at 10:40 PM on 14.01.2019. The delay in this regard has not been explained by the prosecution.
16. The Head Constable (P.W.10) has been extensively cross examined by the appellant in this regard and therewith the appellant has also elicited during cross examination that the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam was situated only about 11/2 KM away from the Kumbakonam West Police Station and that it would take only 15 minutes by walk to reach the said Court. Attempting to explain the same, the Head Constable (P.W.10) has stated that he was not in possession of a vehicle to commute to the office of the Superintendent of Police and thereafter to the said Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and that hence, the delay has occasioned due to him utilising public transport. This Court finds the Head Constable’s (P.W.10) explanation to be a frivolous afterthought as the prosecution has not attempted to bring any material on record to sufficiently explain the delay in forwarding the FIR (Ex.P13). Therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out and thereby the delay in forwarding the FIR (Ex.P13) is not only suspicious but is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
17. At this juncture, it is useful to turn to Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala [(2022) 8 SCC 440] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has relied upon various rulings including Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. [(1972) 3 SCC 393], Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala [(1980) 4 SCC 425], Rajeevan v. State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 355] and Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 9 SCC 561] and has thereby highlighted and reiterated that it is imperative that the FIR is expected to reach the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest point of time to avoid any possible antedating or ante-timing leading to the insertion of materials meant to convict the accused contrary to the truth. Jafarudheen, Supra further warned that on account of such a delay the prosecution may not only get the advantage of spontaneity but there is also a danger creeping in, by the introduction of a colored version or of a concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Being guided by the ratio of Jafarudheen, Supra, this Court is hence of the view that in the present case, the delay in forwarding the FIR (Ex.P13) becomes fatal taking into consideration the unnatural conduct of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and Prathaban (P.W.4).
18. Further, since the blood stained weapons were said to be recovered based on the confession of the appellants, the delay in forwarding the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5) to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the prosecution’s failure to prove the chain of custody of the (M.O.1 to M.O.5) vitiates its recovery. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the Inspector of Police (P.W. 13) deposed that he recovered the weapons (M.O.3 to M.O.5) used to murder the deceased on 15.01.2019 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam only on 22.01.2019. Further (P.W.15) has also confirmed that the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5) were forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam only on 22.01.2019 and that till then they were retained at the Kumbakonam West Police Station. Therefore, this Court seriously doubts the recovery of the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5) due to the delay in forwarding them.
19. Moreso, there is no evidence relating to the sealing, the safe custody and the transmission of the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.7). Neither have the forwarding documents been proved nor have the witnesses responsible for handling and transmitting the material objects been examined in a satisfactory manner so as to rule out the possibility of tampering, contamination or interpolation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of custody of the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.7).
20. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan [2026 SCC OnLine SC 344] and Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand [2026 SCC OnLine SC 988] has held that in the absence of a duly proved chain of custody, the sanctity and integrity of the scientific evidence becomes doubtful and that consequent thereto, the scientific evidence loses its evidentiary value. Therefore, the Biological Report (Ex.P.30) and Serology Report (Ex.P.31) arising from the recovery of the material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.7) are also of no gain to the prosecution’s case.
21. Lastly, this Court finds from the evidence on record that the appellants have examined Karthik (D.W.1), the Reporter of the News Channel i.e. Captain TV to establish that on the date of the occurrence, while Karthik (D.W.1) had interviewed the defacto complainant (P.W.1), she has stated on the previous night 20 individuals from the 10 Feet Bridge Area had come to her house in search of her son and threatened to do away with him. The same was also admitted by the defacto complainant (P.W.1). However, the prosecution has not taken any earnest effort to investigate as to whom these 20 individuals are and as to whether there may be possibility of them having murdered the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of the Captain TV Reporter (D.W.1) clearly discredits the case of the prosecution.
22. Therefore, when the evidence of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and Prathaban (P.W.4) are unreliable and when there is a delay in forwarding the FIR (Ex.P13) and the material (M.O.1 to M.O.5) to the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the links to the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. When the links to the chain of circumstances put forth by the prosecution has not been sufficiently established by the prosecution, an inference of guilt can not be drawn therefrom.
23. Having found thus, it is useful to turn to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984)4 SCC 116], the relevant portion of which is as follows:
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” (emphasis supplied by us)
24. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that when the proved links in the prosecution’s chain of circumstances is not complete so as to show that in all human probability, the deceased was murdered by the appellants, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt in view of the missing links in the prosecution’s chain of circumstances. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby the Trial Court has without proper appreciation of evidence, erroneously convicted the appellant. In view of the serious doubts in the prosecution’s case, the appellants are entitled to acquittal of all charges.
25. In the result, the Criminal appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Kumbakonam in S.C. No. 134 of 2019 is hereby set aside and the appellants are set at liberty. Bail bonds, if any executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded.