{"id":108885,"date":"2005-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2"},"modified":"2014-08-11T06:13:56","modified_gmt":"2014-08-11T00:43:56","slug":"ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2","title":{"rendered":"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (JUDICATURE)                 \n\nDATED: 31\/03\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN         \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR          \n\nCRL. APPEAL No. 1012 OF 2001     \n\nPonnan                                                 ..Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep. By\nThe Inspector of Police,\nViralimalai Police Station\nPudukottai District                     .. Respondent\n\n        This Criminal Appeal has  been  preferred  against  the  judgment  and\nconviction  passed  by  the  Learned  Principal  District  and Sessions Judge,\nPudukottai District in S.C.No.102 of 2000, dated 11.9.2001.\n\n!For appellants ::  Mr.M.Deivanandam, Amicus curiae\n\n^For respondent::  Mr.K.Chellapandian\n                Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
S.ASHOK KUMAR,J.,
\n        The appellant, sole accused in S.C.No:102 of 2000, on the file of  the
\nPrincipal  Sessions Judge, Pudukottai was convicted for offence under Sections
\n302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and for offence under Section 326 IPC
\n(3 counts) to undergo orous imprisonment for four years on each count, for the
\noffence under section 324 IPC (2 counts) to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for
\none year on each count, all the sentences to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        (a) PW.1, Rangan is the father of the accused Ponnan.  Because, P.W.1,
\nthe father of the accused failed to arrange his marriage with the daughter  of
\none Ammasi  of  Saralapatti  Village,  the  accused was in a fit of anger.  On
\n26.4.1999 at 6.45 a.m., he sed grievous injuries to his father by using  M.O.3
\nAruval.  Thereafter he proceeded to a cotton field belonging to Andi Gounder @
\nKrishnan,  where  he  cut  on the right side ear and head of one Chittammal at
\n7.30 a.m., with his aruval.  Thereafter he attacked P.W.3, Meena at 7.45 a.m.,
\nwhen she was standing near the water tap at  Pasumettupatti.    Thereafter  he
\nattacked P.W.4 Rathinam by the said aruval near the water tank.  Thereafter he
\nattacked  a school boy, P.W.6 by name Thangaraj, on his left hand, o n the mud
\nroad near the Virudhapatti Village by the said Aruval and thereafter  he  also
\nassaulted  on  the  right  hand of P.W.5, Andi Gounder @ Krishnan, in the same
\ntransaction and caused grievous injuries to him.  P.W.1,  Mukkan  who  is  the
\nPresident  of  Viru  thapatti Panchayat lodged Ex.P.1 complaint at Viralimalai
\nPolice  Station  on  26.4.1999  at  10.00  a.m.,  Natesan  (since   deceased),
\nInspectorof   Police,  Viralimalai  Police  Station  registered  the  case  in
\nCr.No.251 of 1999 under sections 302 and  324  IPC  and  the  printed  FIR  is
\nEx.P.18.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)  P.W.13,  Kannadasan,  Inspector  of  Police  visited the place of
\noccurrence on 26.4.1999 at 10.30 a.m., and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.8
\nin the presence of witnesses P.W.9,  Chinnappa  and  one  Alagarswamy.He  also
\nprepared a  rough plan Ex.P.19.  ollected the blood stained earth in M.O.1 and
\nordinary earth in M.O.2 under a cover of mahazar  Ex.P.9.    He  conducted  an
\ninquest  over  the  body  of  the  deceased Chittammal and prepared an inquest
\nreport in Ex.P.20.  He examined the witnesses P.W.1 Mookkan, P.   W.2  Rangan,
\nP.W.3  Meena,  P.W.4 Rathinam, P.W.5 Andigounder @ Krishnan and recorded their
\nstatements.  He also prepared another rough plans in Exs.P.21 and 22.  He also
\nprepared observation mahazars in Exs.P.10 and 11.\n<\/p>\n
        (c).  P.W.7, Dr.Karunanithi, Government Hospital, Manapparai, received
\nrequisition letter from the Inspector of Police, Viralimalai on 26.4.1999  and
\nconducted an autopsy over the deceased body of Chittammal on 26.4.1999 at 3.00
\np.m., The  rigor  mort  resent  in  all  four  limbs.   He found the following
\nexternal injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
        1.  6″ cut wound oblique in direction cutting the right side pinna  at
\nthe  middle  ear  depth  up  to  the peritotemporal occipital skin of the bone
\ncutting mastoid process bone exposing the brain matter -severe bleeding  right
\nside skull.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   2″  inches  oblique cut injury present in the right side angle of
\nthe mandively.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  5″ inches length upper part of the right side neck with  bleeding.
\nOpening the skull.\n<\/p>\n
        Internal:\n<\/p>\n
        1″  inches  circular  bone  chip  fragment present in the mastoid area
\nright side present in temporal occipital bone right side over the brain matter
\nblood clots present.  Blood collected in the skull cavity.  Brain cut  section
\npale.  1″  in  the tempo pari and temporal occipital bone.  Hyoid bone intact.
\nInternal organs:  liver cut, pale, kidney pale.  Stomach empty.  Lungs pale.”\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor opined that the death was caused due to the injuries to  the  vital
\norgans, Head  injures, Injuries to the brain Haemorrhage and shock.  He issued
\npostmortem certificate in Ex.P.2.\n<\/p>\n
        (d) P.W.7 also examined the injured person P.W.2, Rangan on  26.4.1999
\nat 6.45 p.m., and he found the following external injuries on his body:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Cut and 2 + ” x 1 ” x 1″ put in the left writ joint oblipn gnit;\n<\/p>\n
2.  2″ x + ” x + ” cut and put in the top of the head;\n<\/p>\n
3.  1″ x ,” x , ” cut and put in the right side of the top of the head.\n<\/p>\n
The  Doctor  who  issued  the  wound  certificate opined that the injuries are
\nsimple in nature.  He issued a wound certificate in Ex.P.3.\n<\/p>\n
        (e) The same Doctor  also  examined  the  witnesses  P.W.3,  Meena  on
\n26.4.1999  at  9.30 a.m., morning and found the following external injuries on
\nher body:\n<\/p>\n
1.Cut injury 6″ x + ” x +” part in the entire of the bead;\n<\/p>\n
2.  3″ x +” x ,” cut wound below the chin, in the neck.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor gave opinion that the first injury is grievous and other is simple.
\nHe issued a wound certificate in Ex.P.4.\n<\/p>\n
        (f) P.W.7, Doctor examined the witness P.W.4 Rathinam on 26.4.1999  at
\n10.50 a.m., morning and found the following external injuries on his body:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Cut injury +” x1\/4″ x ,” in the left thumb;\n<\/p>\n
2.  +” x +” skin depth cut and portion left index finger;\n<\/p>\n
3.  +” x +” skin depth put in the left middle finger;\n<\/p>\n
4.  +” x1\/2″ depth put in the right arm;\n<\/p>\n
5.  Cut injury in the left and right upper arm.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor  opined  that  the injuries are simple in nature.  He also issued a
\nwound certificate in Ex.P.5.\n<\/p>\n
        (g) P.W.7, Doctor also examined P.W.5, Mr.Andi Gounder on the same day
\nat 10.45 a.m., morning and he found the following  external  injuries  on  his
\nbody:\n<\/p>\n
“A  cut injury on the left behind the right hand finger and a middle finger 5″
\nx 1″ x s” heeling injury”.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor opined that the injury is grievous in nature.  He  issued  a  wound
\ncertificate in Ex.P.6.\n<\/p>\n
        (h)  P.W.7,  Doctor  examined  the witnesses P.W.6 Mr.Thangaraj on the
\nsame day at 10.30 a.m., morning and he found the following  external  injuries
\non his body:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Cut and 27 + x bone depth present in the left arm middle arm;\n<\/p>\n
2.  Leg  1″  x  + ” cut injury at left thigh.  He opined that the injuries are
\ngrievous in nature.  He issued a wound certificate in Ex.P.7.”\n<\/p>\n
        (i).  Continuing his investigation P.W.13 arrested  the  accused  near
\nChellandi  Amman  Temple  at  4.00 pm., on the same evening and seized M.O.3 ,
\nblood stained Aruval under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.12.    He  examined  P.W.7,
\nDr.Karunanithi,  P.W.7, P.W.14 and er witnesses and recorded their statements.
\nHe sent requisition for chemical analysation of  the  case  properties.    The
\nchemical analyst  reports  are  Exs.P.16  and  P.17.    After  completing  the
\ninvestigation P.W.13 laid the charge sheet against the  accused  for  offences
\nunder sections 302, 324 and 326 IPC in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Keeranur
\non 30.7.1999.\n<\/p>\n
        (3).  Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 14
\nand marked Exs.    P.1  to  P.22  and M.Os 1 to 9.  No witness was examined on
\nbehalf of the accused.  Dr.Elangovan, Assistant Professor  of  Kilpauk  Mental
\nHealth  Institute,  Chennai was ex ed as CW.1 and the case summary recorded at
\nthe Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, was marked as Ex.C.1.\n<\/p>\n
        (4).  When the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in the evidence  of  the  prosecution  witnesses,  the
\naccused  admitted having caused the death of Chittammal and injuries to P.W.2,
\nhis father P.W.3, Meena, P.  Rathinam, P.W.5 Andi Gounder and P.W.6 Thangaraj.
\nHe also admitted the time of arrest and recovery of bloodstained Aruval, M.O.3
\nunder a cover of mahazar Ex.P.12.    He  has  also  stated  that  he  was  not
\nconscious when he committed the offence and has forgo tten everything and also
\nadmitted  that  he is suffering from some mental disorder as told by Dr.Kumar,
\nProfessor of KAP Medical College, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
        (5).  The accused seems to be suffering from some abomination for  his
\nfather  since  he  did  not  arrange for his marriage with the daughter of one
\nAmmasi and on that score he started cutting his father first, then Chittammal,
\nthe deceased and thereaft .W.s 3, 4, 5 and 6 one by  one  at  various  places.
\nP.W.s 2 to 6 are injured eye witnesses and P.W.2 is none other than the father
\nof the  accused.    The series of attack by the accused against whom he had no
\nmotive at all like Chittammal, Meena and School b oy Thangaraj would show that
\nthe accused should have been labouring from some mental disorder at  the  time
\nof occurrence.    In  fact,  before  the  Sessions  Court,  P.W.14,  Dr.Kumar,
\nProfessor of KAP Medical College, Trichy, was examined, who has deposed th  at
\nhe  examined the accused from 15.6.1999 to 26.9.1999 in a separate cell and in
\nthe beginning of  the  examination  the  accused  was  always  thinking  about
\nsomething  and after treatment for a period of one week there were no symptoms
\nof mental disorder and e ven though he was aware of the incidence, he was  not
\nable to understand the effect or consequences of the incidence in which he was
\ninvolved  and  he  has  also  come to the conclusion that the accused requires
\nfurther examination with regard to his mental di sorder.    P.W.14,  was  once
\nagain examined  on  27.4.2001 and he has confirmed his earlier findings.  From
\nthe nature of occurrence that the accused went on attacking  whoever  came  on
\nhis way itself shows that the was suffering from some mental disorder.\n<\/p>\n
        (6).   Since the accused had been suffering from some mental disorder,
\nhe is entitled for the protection under section 84 of the Indian  Penal  Code.
\nSection 84 IPC reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“84.   Nothing  is  an  offence  which is done by a person who, at the time of
\ndoing it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the  nature
\nof the act,or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law”.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Under  Section  105  of the Indian Evidence Act “when a person is
\naccused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence  of  circumstances
\nbringing  the  cause  within any of the General exceptions in the Indian Penal
\nCode or within any special exc on or proviso contained in any  other  part  of
\nthe same Code, or in any law defining the offence is upon, and the court shall
\npresume the absence of such circumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.  In  Dahyabhai  V.  State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1563,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said
\nthat the burden of proof lies on that person.\n<\/p>\n
        It  is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused
\nis presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the  prosecution
\nto prove  the  guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.  The prosecution,
\ntherefore, in a case o micide shall prove beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the
\naccused  caused  death  with the requisite intention described in S.299 of the
\nIndian Penal Code.  This general burden never shifts and it  always  rests  on
\nthe prosecution.   But, S.84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is
\nan offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it by reason of
\nunsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act,or that  he
\nis doing  what  is either wrong or contrary to law.  This being an except ion,
\nunder Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the  existence  of
\ncircumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused,
\nand the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.  Under S.105 of
\nthe  Evidence Act, read with the definition of “shall presume” in S.4 thereof,
\nthe court shall regard the absence of such  circumstances  as  proved  unless,
\nafter   considering   the  matters  before  it,  it  believes  that  the  said
\ncircumstance existed or their existence was so probable  that  a  prudent  man
\nought,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case  to  act upon the
\nsupposition that they did exist.  To put it in other words, the  accused  will
\nhave  to  rebut  the  presumption  that  such  circumstances did not exist, by
\nplacing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence
\nof the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon  them.
\nThe accused  has  to satisfy the standard of a “prudent man”.  If the material
\nplaced  before  the  court  ,  s  uch  as,  oral  and  documentary   evidence,
\npresumptions,  admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test
\nof “prudent man”, the accused will have discharged his burden.   The  evidence
\nso  placed  may  not  be  sufficient  to discharge he burden under S.105of the
\nEvidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of  a  judge  as
\nregards one  or  other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself.  It
\nmay, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the  judge  whether
\nthe  accused  h  ad  the  requisite intention laid down in S.299 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.  If the judge has such  reasonable  doubt,he  has  to  acquit  the
\naccused  for  in  that  event  the  prosecution  will  have  failed  to  prove
\nconclusively the guilt of the accused.   There  is  no  conflict  between  the
\ngeneral  burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts,and
\nthe special burden that rests on the  accused  to  make  out  his  defence  of
\ninsanity.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In Shrikant Anandrao Bosale Vs.  State of Maharashtra, reported in
\nAIR 2002 SC 3399, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “In the instant case the accused, Police Countable alleged to have hit
\nhis wife with grinding tone on 24thApril 1994.  The accused took the  plea  of
\ninsanity.  However,the  prosecution relied on anger theory.  The circumstances
\nthat stand proved:  (a) th  pellant  has  a  family  history  his  father  was
\nsuffering from psychiatric illness.  (b) Cause of ailment not known hereditary
\nplays a  part.    (c.) Accused was being treated for unsoundness of mind since
\n1992.  Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophreni a.   Within  a  short
\nspan,  soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had to
\nbe taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital.  (d) Accused was under
\nregular treatment for the mental ailment.  (e) The motive of killing  of  wife
\nwas  weak  being  that she was opposing the idea of the resigning the job of a
\nPolice Constable.  (f) Killing a wife in a day light made no attempt  to  hide
\nor run  away.    Though the facts that the accused did not make any attempt to
\nrun away or that he committe d crime in day light and did not try to  hide  it
\nor  that  motive  to  kill  his  wife  was very weak would not itself indicate
\ninsanity, however, it would not only the aforesaid facts but it would  be  the
\ntotality  of  the  circumstances seen in the light of the ev idence on record,
\nrove that  the  accused  was  suffering  from  paranoid  schizophrenia.    The
\nunsoundness of  mind before and after incident would be a relevant fact.  From
\nthe circumstances of the case clearly an inference  can  be  reasonable  drawn
\nthat the  accu sed was under a delusion at the relevant time.  He was under an
\nattack of the ailment.  The anger theory on which reliance has been placed  by
\nprosecution cannot  be ruled out under schizophrenia attack.  Having regard to
\nthe nature of burden on the accused, the accused can be said  to  have  proved
\nthe  existence of circumstances as required by S.105 of the Evidence Act so as
\nto get benefit of S.84, IPC .  In the circumstance, it cannot be said that the
\ncrime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger.  A  reasonable  doubt
\ncan  be  raised  that  at the time of commission of the crime, the accused was
\nincapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of  unsoundness  of  mind
\nand, thus,  he  would  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  if S.84 IPC.  Hence the
\nconviction an d sentence of the accused would be liable to be set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  As already held, in this case the evidence  of  P.W.14,  Dr.Kumar
\nwould  prove  that  the accused was suffering from some mental disorder and he
\nwas not able to understand the effect or consequence of the incident in  which
\nhe was  involved.  The accuse art from killing the deceased Chittammal against
\nwhom he had no enmity or any motive, has also attacked his own  father,  P.W.2
\nand other  witnesses P.Ws.3 to 6 against whom he has no motive or enmity.  The
\naccused has not spared even the girl who was takin g water in the  tap  and  a
\nsmall school going boy, Thangaraj.  The very nature of the occurrence that the
\naccused  went  on attacking whoever came on his way itself would show that the
\naccused should have been labouring from some mental disorder at  the  time  of
\noccurrence.   The  rule  of  burden  of  proof  in  the context of the plea of
\ninsanity are (a) that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt  that
\nthe offence was committed by the accused that the requisite “mens rea” and the
\nburden continues from the beginning till the end of the trial (b) that it is a
\nrebuttable  presumption  that the prisoner was not insane when he committed an
\noffence in the sense set forth in Section 84 Indian Penal Code, (C)  that  the
\naccused may rebut the presumption of sanit y at the relevant time bringing the
\ncase  within  Section  84, IPC, by producing oral, documentary, circumstantial
\nand other materials  and  he  may  discharge  the  burden  by  establishing  a
\nreasonable probable  case.    The accused is not called upon to establish th e
\nelement of Section 84, IPC by producing evidence beyond reasonable  doubt  and\n<\/p>\n
(d)  that  even  the  accused fails to establish affirmatively or conclusively
\nthat he was of unsound mind and committed the act under the circumstances  set
\nout  in  Section  84,  IP  C, but raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
\nCourt as regards presence of essential ingredients of the  offence,  which  of
\ncourse includes, `mens rea’ the requisite criminal intention,l the Court would
\nbe entitled to acquit the accused the ground t hat the general burden of proof
\nresting on  the prosecution was not discharged.  Therefore, applying the above
\nprinciple, we can safely conclude that the accused is entitled for  protection
\nunder  Section  84 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction and sentence of
\nthe accused is liable to be set aside.   At  this  stage,  we  are  not  aware
\nwhether  the  accused  who  is  confined  in jail has been cured of the mental
\ndisorder.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The materials placed before us establish that the accused has  no
\ncriminal  intention  at  the relevant time and as such the case squarely falls
\nunder Section 84 IPC.  By  preponderance  of  probability  also  it  has  been
\nestablished  that  the accused wa ntally unsound and at the time of commission
\nof the acts he was incapable of knowing the nature of acts and\/or that what he
\nwas doing was either wrong or contrary to law and accordingly we set aside the
\nconviction and findings passed against the appell ant.  We are acquitting  the
\naccused  on  the  ground  that  at  the  time  at which he was alleged to have
\ncommitted the offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable  of
\nknowing  the  nature of the acts alleged as constituting the offences and\/or t
\nhat they were wrong or contrary to law, but we record the finding that it  was
\nthe accused  who committed the act.  Now, it would be the statutory obligation
\nof the learned District and Sessions  Judge,  Pudukottai  District  to  follow
\nmeticulously  the pro visions of Section 335 of the Cr.P.C., The learned Judge
\nmay direct detention of the accused in safe  custody  in  such  manner  as  he
\nthinks  fit or may order the accused to be delivered to any relative or friend
\nof the accused on such terms and conditions a s he thinks  just  and  prudent.
\nThe  accused may be detained in the lunatic asylum however, in accordance with
\nthe provisions of the Rules framed under the Indian  Lunacy  Act,  1912.    We
\ndirect  the  Learned  District  and Sessions Judge to follow the provisions of
\nS.338 of the Code carefully and cautiously to  protect  the  interest  of  the
\nsociety.   The  accused  shall not be released from the safe custody until the
\nconcerned Civil Surgeon  or  the  Chief  Medical  Officer  or  the  Commission
\ncertified that the appellant is fit to live in the society and could no longer
\nbe a  hazard  to  the  society.    The  learned  District  and Sessions Judge,
\nPudukottai shall report to the State Government the action taken by him  under
\nSection 335(1)  of  the  Code.  We draw the attention of the le arned District
\nand Sessions Judge and the authorities to the mandatory  provisions  contained
\nin S.338 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   In  the  result,  the  appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Before  parting with the case, we record the valuable assistance
\nrendered by Mr.M.Deivanandam, learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  who  was
\nappointed  as  Amicus  Curiae,  and we fix his remuneration as Rs.2000\/= to be
\npaid by the Legal Services Authority.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:  yes<\/p>\n
Index:  yes<\/p>\n
gkv.\n<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1) The Public Prosecutor
\nMadurai Bench of Madras High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
\nPudukottai.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (JUDICATURE) DATED: 31\/03\/2005 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR CRL. APPEAL No. 1012 OF 2001 Ponnan ..Appellant -Vs- State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station Pudukottai 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-108885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPonnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 - 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\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-11T00:43:56+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-11T00:43:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\"},\"wordCount\":3535,\"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\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\",\"name\":\"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-11T00:43:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 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":"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 - 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\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-11T00:43:56+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-11T00:43:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2"},"wordCount":3535,"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\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2","name":"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-11T00:43:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnan-vs-state-rep-by-on-31-march-2005-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponnan vs State Rep. By on 31 March, 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\/108885","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=108885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}