{"id":107369,"date":"2008-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-31T09:46:42","modified_gmt":"2016-01-31T04:16:42","slug":"pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 25\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCrl.A.No.734 of 2007\n\n1.Pandy\n2.Chokkan\n3.Karunanidhi\n4.Seeni alias Seenivasan\t\t..  Appellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nState by\nthe Inspector of Police,\nMelur Police Station,\nMadurai District.\n(Crime No.558 of 1999)      \t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374  Cr.P.C against\nthe judgment dated 28.07.2000 made in S.C.No.547 of 1999 by the II Additional\nSessions Judge, Madurai.\n\n!For Appellants   \t...  Mr.K.Jegannathan\n                              for A1 and A2\n\t\t\t     Mr.P.Andiraj\n                             for A3 and A4\n\n^For Respondent   \t...  Mr.C.Daniel Manoharan,\n\t\t\t    Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants four in number challenging the judgment of the II
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 28.07.2000 made in S.C.No.547 of 1999,
\nwhereby the accused\/appellants stood charged, tried, found guilty under Sections
\n341 and 302 r\/w 34 IPC and they were awarded punishment to undergo one year
\nRigorous Imprisonment for the first charge and also to undergo life imprisonment
\nfor the second charge, have brought-forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can
\nbe stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta) P.Ws.1 to 4 and also the deceased Balakrishnan and all the accused
\nbelong to Ceylone Colony, Nondikovilpatti within the jurisdiction of the
\nrespondent Police.  On the day of occurrence that was on 15.06.1999, at about
\n8.00 p.m., P.W.5 was attacked by the deceased.  At the time, the deceased
\nBalakrishnan and his brothers, who were P.Ws.1 and 2 along with others separated
\nthem and brought P.W.5 home.  At that time, A2 made a challenge.  When P.W.1 was
\nassaulted, the deceased Balakrishnan in turn assaulted A2.  Further, A2 made a
\nchallenge, at that time, he left the place.  At about 11.15 p.m., Balakrishnan,
\nwho was employed in a Transport Corporation proceeded to his duty at about 11.45
\nhours.  At that time, P.Ws.1 to 3 were all standing inside the house.  When they
\ncame outside and they were just chatting.  When Balakrishnan left a distant of
\n50 feet, all the four accused who were hiding themselves started attacking the
\ndeceased. A1 attacked him with a knife on his neck, A2 attacked him on the left
\nflank, A3 attacked him on his left foot, while A.4 attacked him on his left and
\nright fore arms.  This was witnessed by all the P.Ws.1 to 4.  Immediately, A1
\nwas caught by the prosecution witnesses and they snatched the knife from his
\nhand and in that process A1 also sustained injuries, other accused fled away
\nfrom the place of occurrence.  A1 was directly taken by P.Ws. 2 and 3 to the
\nrespondent police station and in turn, P.W.15, who was present at the police
\nstation, sent him along with a medical memo to the Government Hospital, Melur.
\nP.W.9 Doctor, who was in duty at 12.05 hours,  examined A1 and he found injuries
\nas noted in Ex.P8 Accident Register.  When the injured Balakrishnan was taken to
\nthe Government Hospital, an intimation was given from the Government Hospital to
\nthe respondent Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
\tb) On receipt of the intimation, P.W.16, Inspector of Police proceeded to
\nthe Government Hospital, Melur and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at about
\n01.45 a.m on 16.06.1999.  On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered
\nin the respondent Police Station in Crime No.558 of 1999 under Sections 341 and
\n302 IPC.  Express FIR Ex.P.20 was despatched to the Court and to the higher
\nofficials.\n<\/p>\n
\tc) On receipt of copy of the FIR, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up
\nthe investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in
\nthe presence of witnesses and prepared an Observation mahazar Ex.P.21, and  a
\nrough sketch Ex.P.23. Further, he enquired some witnesses and recorded their
\nstatements.  He recovered sample earth M.O.7, bloodstained earth  M.O.8 and also
\nother material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazer
\nEx.P.23.  He also recovered M.O.3, knife from P.W.3 at the Government Hospital
\nunder Ex.P.19, form 95.  The investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of
\nthe deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an
\ninquest report, which was marked as Ex.P.24.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the
\nGovernment Hospital, for the purpose of autopsy.  P.W.8, the Doctor, attached to
\nMelur Government Medical College Hospital,  conducted autopsy on the dead body
\nof the deceased and issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate and has given his
\nopinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due
\nto injury to vital vessels arch of arota, ten to fourteen hours prior to
\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\te) Pending investigation, on 17.06.1999 at about 13.00 hours, the
\ninvestigator arrested A1, when he was under treatment at the Melur Government
\nHospital and he was sent for judicial remand.  Both of them A3 and A4 were also
\narrested on 18.06.1999 and they gave a confessional statement voluntarily and
\nthe admissible part of the said confessions were marked as Exs.P.2 and 11,
\npursuant to which the third accused produced M.O.2 knife and the fourth accused
\nproduced M.O.1 knife.  Both were recovered under two cover of mahazers namely
\nExs.P.10 and 12 respectively.  They were also sent for judicial remand.\n<\/p>\n
\tf) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from
\nthe dead body of the deceased and the Material Objects recovered from the
\naccused, were sent for chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition, Ex.P.15,
\ngiven by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Two
\nreports were received.  One is Ex.P.17, the Chemical analysis report and the
\nother is Ex.P.18, the Serologist report.  On completion of the investigation,
\nthe Investigating Officer has filed the final report before the concerned court,
\nwhich in turn committed the case to the court of sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed.\n<\/p>\n
\tg) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the
\nprosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied on 28 exhibits and 9 M.Os.  On
\ncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
\naccused\/appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the
\nincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They
\ndenied them as false.  No defence witness was examined. After hearing the
\narguments of the counsel and looking into the material available meticulously,
\nthe lower court, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
\nreasonable doubts and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment as
\nreferred to above. Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at
\nthe instance of the accused\/appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, Mr.K.Jegannathan and
\nMr.P.Andiraj, in their sincere attempt of assailing the judgment of the Court
\nbelow, made the following submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\ta)In the instant case, the prosecution rested its case by examining four
\nwitnesses as the occurrence witnesses.  Out of those five witnesses, P.W.4
\nturned hostile.  P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased and P.W.3 is the
\nfather of the deceased and therefore, all are  interested witnesses.  Apart from
\nthat even as per the case of prosecution, the accused party and the prosecution
\nwitnesses were in inimical terms and further in the instant case, even the
\nevidence of these witnesses inter se thoroughly filled with contradictions.  The
\ncase of the prosecution has failed from two angles.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)Firstly, in the instant case, with reference to the genesis of the
\noccurrence, the prosecution has either failed to bring it to the notice of the
\nCourt or has suppressed.  According to prosecution witnesses, immediately after
\nthe occurrence, the first accused was taken to the police station, P.W.15, who
\nwas available there, sent him to the Government Hospital, Melur and the A.1 was
\nexamined by P.W.9 doctor, who has noted all the injuries found on him, which
\nwere 11 in number as described in Accident Register  Ex.P.8; out of those
\ninjuries, injury No.6 and 11 were found to be grievous and apart from that, bone
\nfractures were found.  The explanation what was given by the prosecution was
\nthat at the time of occurrence, P.Ws.1 to 3 intervened and snatched the knife
\nfrom the hands of A1 and also they attacked with wooden log.  The explanation
\ntendered by the prosecution can not be true but false.  Even as per the evidence
\nof P.W.15, P.Ws.2 and 3, who took A1 to the police station , also narrated the
\noccurrence to P.W.15, thereafter he went to the hospital and met PW.1 and
\nrecorded Ex.P.1 report and as a result of which a case came to be registered.
\nThe original information given by P.Ws.2 and 3 who were the witnesses to the
\noccurrence was thoroughly suppressed and now the information what was  alleged
\nto have been recorded by P.W.15 at Government Hospital could not be the first
\ninformation.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Added further, P.W.15 has categorically admitted that the signature of
\nP.W.1 was obtained in Ex.P.20, first information report only at the police
\nstation.\n<\/p>\n
\td) All these would go to show that the prosecution has not placed the
\nentire case before the court.  Thus, they did not allow the Court to  come to a
\ncorrect conclusion and the benefit of doubt should be given in favour of the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t e) The non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A1 and other
\ncircumstances would be sufficient to reject the case of prosecution.  But, the
\nlower Court has found the appellants as guilty and therefore, they are entitled
\nfor the acquittal in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also
\nscrutinized the materials available.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. It is not a fact in controversy that one Balakrishnan, brother of
\nP.Ws.1 and 2, son of P.W.3 was met his death following the incident taken on
\n15.06.1999 at about 11.15 hours and he was declared dead.  Following the
\nregistration of the case by P.W.15, P.W.16 the Inspector of Plice, pending
\ninvestigation conducted the inquest on the dead body and P.W.8 Doctor conducted
\nautopsy on the dead body and and gave an opinion that the Balakrishnan died out
\nof shock and hemorrhagedue due to injury to vital vessels of aorta.  The fact
\nthat the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the
\nappellants and hence it has got to be recorded so.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, four witnesses
\nwere examined as the  occurrence witnesses, who were P.Ws.1 to 4.  Out of the
\nfour witnesses,  PW.4 turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken the case of the
\nprosecution.  According to all of them, when Balakrishnan was just proceeding to
\nhis house at 11.15 hours, all the four accused\/appellants armed with deadly
\nweapons hiding themselves  attacked him indiscriminately and thereby caused his
\ndeath. Even as per the prosecution case, A1 was examined by P.W.9 Doctor at
\nabout 12.05 hours and Accident Register Copy in that regard was placed as Ex.P8.
\nOn a perusal of Ex.P8 would reveal that A1 was produced before the doctor by a
\nconstable along with a medical memo.  Hence, it would quite clear that before
\nbeing produced before the Government Hospital, he should have been produced
\nbefore the police station.  Even according to P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police,
\nA1 was produced before him by P.Ws.2 and 3 and when they produced A1 along with
\nknife they have also narrated the incident.  If to be so, that should have been
\nthe first information.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. According to the prosecution, P.W.15 had an intimation from the
\nGovernment Hospital, Melur, and thereafter, he went over there and recorded the
\nstatement of P.W.1 namely Ex.P.1 and on the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be
\nregistered at the police station afterwards.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Now, at this juncture, the Court is able to see that when A1 was
\nproduced before the police station and he was found sustaining injuries and he
\nwas also produced before the medical person and Ex.P8 would indicate 11
\ninjuries, and out of the 11 injuries, injury No.6 and 11 were found to be
\ngrievous and bone fractures were also noticed.  According to P.Ws.1 to 3, at the
\ntime of occurrence, they snatched the knife from the hands of A1 and also
\nattacked him with wooden logs.  The injuries found in the body of A1 and in
\nparticular injury Nos.6 and 11 could not have been caused at all as such.  Thus,
\nit would be quite clear that A1 was produced before the doctor PW.9, he has
\nclearly stated that he was attacked by known persons with knife and wooden log
\netc.  Under such circumstance, insofar as the injury sustained by A1 was
\nconcerned, the prosecution did not put-forth a proper explanation which could be
\naccepted.  Apart from that, the Inspector of Police has also not investigated in
\nthat regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Thus, the Court is able to see two infirmities in this case.  Firstly,
\nthe fact that P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the police station and narrated the
\noccurrence.  Under the circumstances, Ex.P.1 report, which according to P.W.15,
\nhe recorded from P.W.1 at the Government Hospital, Melur could not be the first
\ninformation.  Secondly, when the prosecution came forward to give the
\nexplanation in respect of the injuries sustained to A.1, those injuries remain
\nunacceptable in view of the grievous injuries noticed. The injuries sustained by
\nA1 as put-forth by the prosecution witnesses could not have happened at all.
\nThus, this Court is of the considered opinion that they have also suppressed the
\nentire facts of the case and the genesis of the case was not placed before the
\nCourt.  Therefore, it would suffice to give the benefit of doubt to the
\naccused\/appellants and they are entitled for acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The accused\/appellants
\nare acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.  The bail bonds executed
\nby the accused\/appellants, if any,  stand terminated.\n<\/p>\n
arul\/asvm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The II Additional Sessions Judge,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Melur Police Station,
\n  Madurai District.\n<\/p>\n
  (Crime No.558 of 1999)<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.No.734 of 2007 1.Pandy 2.Chokkan 3.Karunanidhi 4.Seeni alias Seenivasan .. Appellants Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District. […]<\/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-107369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-31T04:16:42+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T04:16:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2293,\"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\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T04:16:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-31T04:16:42+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T04:16:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008"},"wordCount":2293,"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\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008","name":"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T04:16:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandy-vs-state-by-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandy vs State By on 25 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/107369","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=107369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}