{"id":101415,"date":"2005-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005"},"modified":"2017-02-26T15:09:55","modified_gmt":"2017-02-26T09:39:55","slug":"panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 26\/07\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR        \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM           \n\nC.A.No.642 of 1999 \n\nPanneer Selvam                                 .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState represented by\nThe Inspector of Police\nMalayampalayam Police Station  \nErode District\n(Crime No.313 of 1997)                          .. Respondent\n\n        Criminal appeal filed under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure\nagainst  the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.62\nof 1999 dated 28.7.1997.\n\n!For Appellant          :  Mr.B.Sriramulu\n                        Senior Counsel\n                        for M\/s.N.A.Ravindran\n                        and K.Annadurai\n\n^For Respondent         :  Mr.S.Jayakumar\n                        Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<br \/>\n        The sole accused in a case of murder on being found guilty as per  the<br \/>\ncharge  by  the  II Additional Sessions Court, Erode, in S.C.No.62 of 1999 and<br \/>\nawarded life imprisonment, has brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Natarajan.  P.W.2 is the  cousin<br \/>\nbrother of the deceased, living in a distance of 10 feet from the house of the<br \/>\ndeceased.   The  deceased  was  in need of Rs.5,000\/-, which he asked from the<br \/>\naccused.  The accused in turn borrowed the said sum from  P.W.6,  who  is  the<br \/>\nProprietor  of a Finance Company in Erode, on 26.6.1996 and gave the amount to<br \/>\nthe deceased.  Many a demand was made by the accused for  the  return  of  the<br \/>\nsaid sum;  but,  the  deceased  did  not  repay so.  On the date of occurrence<br \/>\nnamely 26.12.1997, at about 12.00 Noon, the accused came to the house  of  the<br \/>\ndeceased, where  P.Ws.1 and 2 were present.  He made the demand of Rs.5,000\/-;<br \/>\nbut, the deceased replied &#8220;no money&#8221;.  The accused told him  that  he  was  in<br \/>\ndire  need  of  money,  and hence, the deceased could pay at least Rs.2,000\/-.<br \/>\nAgain the deceased gave the same answer.  Then, pursuant to a quarrel  between<br \/>\nthe  two, the accused pulled out a knife from his waist and stabbed Natarajan,<br \/>\nthe deceased in the case, on the right side of his  stomach.    P.Ws.1  and  2<br \/>\nwitnessed the occurrence.  The accused fled away from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)  The  injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Erode, who was<br \/>\nattended by P.W.12 the Doctor, and in respect  of  the  injuries  caused,  the<br \/>\nprosecution marked  the  Accident  Register copy as Ex.P14.  An intimation was<br \/>\nreceived by P.W.15  the  Head  Constable,  attached  to  the  Out-Post  Police<br \/>\nStation, who in turn informed to Malayampalayam Police Station.  On receipt of<br \/>\nthe said message, P.W.18 the Head Constable, attached to Malayampalayam Police<br \/>\nStation,  went  to  the Government Hospital, Erode, and recorded the statement<br \/>\ngiven by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1, on the strength of which a case came<br \/>\nto be registered in Crime No.313 of 1997 under Sec.326 of I.P.C.  The  printed<br \/>\nFirst Information  Report Ex.P23 was sent to the Court.  In the meanwhile, the<br \/>\naccused went to P.W.10 the Doctor, who was having a private clinic, and he had<br \/>\ntreatment for the injuries caused on his palm.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.18 the  Head  Constable,<br \/>\ntook up  the  case  for investigation and went to the scene of occurrence.  In<br \/>\nthe presence of witnesses, he made an inspection and prepared  an  observation<br \/>\nmahazar Ex.P3  and a rough sketch Ex.P24.  He also recovered from the place of<br \/>\noccurrence bloodstained earth M.O.5, and sample earth M.O.6, under a cover  of<br \/>\nmahazar Ex.P4.   Despite treatment, Natarajan died in the hospital on the same<br \/>\nday at 8.30 P.M.  An intimation Ex.P15,  was  sent  to  the  concerned  Police<br \/>\nStation.   P.W.16  a  Grade-I  Constable, attached to Out-Post Police Station,<br \/>\nreceived the intimation  and  forwarded  the  same  to  Malayampalayam  Police<br \/>\nStation.   On  receipt of the death intimation, P.W.18 converted the case into<br \/>\none under Sec.302 of I.P.C.  Express report Ex.P25, was sent to the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d) On receipt of the copy of the  F.I.R.,  P.W.19  the  Inspector  of<br \/>\nPolice, took  up  the  case  for investigation.  He proceeded to the hospital,<br \/>\nconducted  inquest  on  the  dead  body  of  Natarajan  in  the  presence   of<br \/>\npanchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P26 the inquest report.  He sent a<br \/>\nrequisition  Ex.P11  to  the  hospital along with the dead body for conduct of<br \/>\npostmortem.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (e) P.W.11 the Civil Assistant Surgeon,  attached  to  the  Government<br \/>\nHead  Quarters  Hospital,  Erode,  on  receipt  of  the requisition, conducted<br \/>\nautopsy on the dead body of Natarajan and found the following injuries.<br \/>\n&#8220;1) A right paramedian incision with sutures  about  8&#8221;  from  the  epigastric<br \/>\nregion to umbilicus seen.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)  A  drainage  hole  about  1&#8243; in length with drainage tube in the right sub<br \/>\ncostal margin about 6&#8243; from the incision.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Doctor has issued Ex.P12 the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that<br \/>\nthe deceased would appear to  have  died  of  shock  and  haemorrhage  due  to<br \/>\nvisceral injury.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (f)  Following  the  same,  the  place  of occurrence was photographed<br \/>\nthrough P.W.9 a Photographer, and the photographs and negatives were marked as<br \/>\nEx.P9 series and Ex.P10 series respectively.  During investigation, P.W.19 the<br \/>\nInvestigating Officer, arrested the accused on 27.12 .1997, at  Solangapalayam<br \/>\nBus stop,  when  he  gave  a  confessional  statement.  The admissible part is<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.P5.  Pursuant to  the  confessional  statement,  both  the  knife<br \/>\nM.O.1,  and  the  T.V.S.50  M.O.9, in which the accused travelled, produced by<br \/>\nhim, were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P7.    On  completion  of  the<br \/>\ninvestigation, the final report was filed before the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The case was committed to the Court of Session, and the necessary<br \/>\ncharge was framed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   In  order  to  substantiate  the  charge  levelled  against   the<br \/>\nappellant\/accused,  the  prosecution  marched  20  witnesses  and relied on 27<br \/>\nexhibits and 9 material objects.  On completion of the evidence on the side of<br \/>\nthe prosecution, the accused was questioned  under  Sec.313  of  the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence<br \/>\nof the  prosecution  witnesses,  which  he flatly denied as false.  No defence<br \/>\nwitnesses were examined.  The trial Court on hearing  the  arguments  advanced<br \/>\nand  on  scrutiny  of the materials, found the appellant\/accused guilty as per<br \/>\nthe charge and awarded the life imprisonment which is the  subject  matter  of<br \/>\nchallenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia<br \/>\nmade the following prime submissions:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i) In the instant case, the prosecution relied  on  the  evidence  of<br \/>\nP.Ws.1 and  2,  who are highly interested.  P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased,<br \/>\nwhile P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased, and thus, they  have  given<br \/>\nthe false  versions  against  the  accused.   It is pertinent to note that the<br \/>\ndeceased owed money to the appellant\/accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii) The medical evidence is not  in  corroboration  with  the  ocular<br \/>\ntestimony.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   The  learned  Senior Counsel would further add that even assuming<br \/>\nthat the case put forth by the prosecution that it was the accused who stabbed<br \/>\nthe deceased, is proved, then the fact remains that it  was  a  case  where  a<br \/>\nquarrel  ensued  between the parties for a period of 15 minutes which is quite<br \/>\nevident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and it was also a single stab,  and<br \/>\nunder the circumstances, the act of the accused could not be termed as murder,<br \/>\nand  hence, he is entitled to the benefit of exception 4 to Sec.300 of I.P.C.,<br \/>\nand it has got to be considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor  on  the<br \/>\nabove contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   It is not in dispute that the deceased Natarajan who was taken to<br \/>\nthe hospital with  injuries,  succumbed  to  those  injuries.    In  order  to<br \/>\nsubstantiate  the  same,  the  prosecution has not only brought forth evidence<br \/>\nthrough P.Ws.1 and 2, but  also  relied  on  the  Doctor&#8217;s  evidence  and  the<br \/>\npostmortem certificate  Ex.P12  issued  by him.  It is also pertinent to point<br \/>\nout that the accused never questioned the truth of this fact either before the<br \/>\nlower Court or before this Court.  Hence, it  can  be  safely  concluded  that<br \/>\nNatarajan died out of homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   In  order  to  establish  the  fact  that it was the accused, who<br \/>\nstabbed the deceased at the time of the occurrence, P.Ws.1  and  2  have  been<br \/>\nexamined.   True it is that P.W.1 is the wife, and P.W.2 is the cousin brother<br \/>\nof the deceased.  But, merely on the ground of relationship, the  evidence  of<br \/>\nthe witnesses  cannot  be  rejected.    Despite  the  careful  scrutiny of the<br \/>\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,  it  remains  unshaken,  and  the  lower  Court  was<br \/>\nperfectly correct  in accepting their evidence.  That apart, their evidence is<br \/>\nfully corroborated by the medical evidence,  and  thus,  the  prosecution  has<br \/>\nbrought forth sufficient evidence to hold that it was the accused, who stabbed<br \/>\nthe deceased at the time of the occurrence, and consequently he died.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   So  far  as  the act of the appellant\/accused was concerned, the<br \/>\nCourt has to necessarily  agree  with  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the<br \/>\nappellant.   In  the  instant  case, even from the case of the prosecution, it<br \/>\ncould be seen that the deceased owed Rs.5,000\/- to the appellant, and a demand<br \/>\nwas made; but, it was not repaid.  The evidence would further go to show  that<br \/>\nat  the  time  of  the occurrence, the appellant came over to the house of the<br \/>\ndeceased, and when a demand for return of Rs.5,000\/- was made,  the  same  was<br \/>\nnot  repaid,  and  though  the  appellant\/accused asked the deceased to pay at<br \/>\nleast Rs.2,000\/-, the deceased could not do so, and thus, there was a  quarrel<br \/>\nensued  between the parties for about 15 minutes preceding the occurrence, and<br \/>\nfollowing the same, the appellant\/accused stabbed him in a sudden fight in the<br \/>\nheat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.  Under the circumstances, this Court is<br \/>\nof the view that the appellant\/accused is entitled  to  have  the  benefit  of<br \/>\nexception 4  to  Sec.300 of I.P.C.  In the instant case, it can be well stated<br \/>\nthat the act of the accused would not fall within the ambit of murder.    But,<br \/>\nat the same time, though it is not intentional or premeditated, he should have<br \/>\ngot  the  knowledge  that his act would likely to cause the death of the other<br \/>\nparty.  In such circumstances, this Court is of the  considered  opinion  that<br \/>\nthe  appellant\/accused  has  got  to be found guilty under Sec.304 (Part I) of<br \/>\nI.P.C., and awarding the punishment of 7  years  Rigorous  Imprisonment  would<br \/>\nmeet the  ends  of  justice.   Hence, the conviction of the appellant\/ accused<br \/>\nunder Sec.302 of I.P.C.  and the consequent sentence imposed upon him are  set<br \/>\naside, and  instead,  he is convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of I.P.C.  and is<br \/>\ndirected to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  In the result, with the  above  modification  in  conviction  and<br \/>\nsentence, this  criminal  appeal is dismissed.  The sentence already undergone<br \/>\nby the appellant\/accused, shall be given set off.  It  is  reported  that  the<br \/>\nappellant is  on  bail.   Hence, the Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit<br \/>\nhim to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)The II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)The II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode,<br \/>\nThrough The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)The District Collector, Erode District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4)The Director General of Police, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>5)The Public Prosecutor, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>6)The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>7)The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station<br \/>\n        Erode District, (Crime No.313 of 1997)<\/p>\n<p>nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26\/07\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.A.No.642 of 1999 Panneer Selvam .. Appellant -Vs- State represented by The Inspector of Police Malayampalayam Police Station Erode District (Crime No.313 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-26T09:39:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-26T09:39:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1854,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\",\"name\":\"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-26T09:39:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-26T09:39:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-26T09:39:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005"},"wordCount":1854,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005","name":"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-26T09:39:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panneer-selvam-vs-state-represented-by-on-26-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Panneer Selvam vs State Represented By on 26 July, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101415","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}