{"id":109683,"date":"2008-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-28T08:12:40","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T02:42:40","slug":"chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 21\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCrl.A.(MD)No.505 of 2006\nand\nCrl.A.(MD)No.129 of 2007\n\n\nChidambara Krishnan alias\n  Duraiappa alias Durai\t\t\t\t... Appellant in Crl.A.(MD)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     No.505\/2006 \/ Accused No.3\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nMaharajan\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant in Crl.A.(MD)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     No.129\/2007 \/ Accused No.1\n\t\t\nVs.\n\nThe State\nrep. by the Inspector of Police,\nPalayamkottai Police Station,\nCr.No.2133 of 2003,\nTirunelveli District \t\t\t\t...  Respondents in both the appeal<\/pre>\n
COMMON PRAYER<\/p>\n
These criminal appeals have been preferred under Sections 374 and
\n374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.09.2006 made in S.C.No.40 of 2004
\nby the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\tin  \t\t... Mr.V.Kathirvelu\nCrl.A(MD)No.505 of 2006\nFor Appellant\tin  \t\t... Mr.S.Palanivelayutham\nCrl.A(MD)No.129 of 2007\n^For Respondents \t\t... Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, A.P.P.\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by S.PALANIVELU, J.)\t<\/p>\n
\t\tThese criminal appeals have been preferred under Sections 374 and
\n374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.09.2006 made in S.C.No.40 of 2004
\nby the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The trial Court found accused Nos.1,2 and 3 guilty under Section
\n302 I.P.C. and sentenced them each to undergo imprisonment for life and also to
\npay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
\nthree years each and they have also been found guilty under Section 392 read
\nwith 397 (2 counts) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
\nseven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000\/- each, in default to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for two years.  All the said sentences have been directed
\nto run concurrently.  Since, the fourth accused was found guilty under Section
\n411 I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
\nyears and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000\/- in default to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for two years.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. Aggrieved against the Judgment of conviction passed by the trial
\nCourt the first and third accused have preferred separate appeals before this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. Succinctly portrayed the prosecution case is as follows:
\n\tThe accused are residents of Ariyanayakipuram in Tirunelveli District.
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 belong to Virudhunagar, who used to come to Tirunelveli on every
\nThursday to collect money from their customers, who were having transactions
\nwith them.  The accused 1 to 5 came Tirunelveli Town and entertained an
\nintention to rob money from P.Ws.1 and 2 and in that course, if necessary they
\nmight also be eliminated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. On 14.08.2003 at about 11.55 P.M., P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased
\nMurugarajan boarded the bus by name Ganapathi Transport, bearing registration
\nNo.TN-72, H-9941 in Tirunelveli Town Puttarathi Amman Kovil stop and the bus was
\nproceeding to the new bus stand in Tirunelveli.  On 15.08.2003 at about 00.10
\nhours, while the bus was proceeding on the south of Speaker Chellapandianar
\nstatue along bye pass road and stopped in B.S.N.L. Office stop, the fourth
\naccused holding aruvual in his hand, threatened P.W.1 and snatched a rexin bag
\ncontaining Rs.1,40,000\/- from him.  The first and the fourth accused then
\nassaulted the deceased Murugarajan and asked the bag he kept.  The first accused
\nthreatened the driver of the bus by showing aruval to stop the bus.  The first
\nand fourth accused had an intention to do away with Murugarajan and remove him
\noff the bag containing money.  The first and third accused pulled Murugarajan
\nfrom the bus.  But he did not part with the bag, however the second and fourth
\naccused cut him on his back with aruval indiscriminately, relieved him off the
\nbag and fled away from the scene of crime.  P.W.1 removed Murugarajan to
\nTirunelveli Medical College Hospital at about 00.30 hours, where he was
\npronounced dead by the doctor.  P.W.1 laid complaint Ex.P1 with Palayamkottai
\nPolice Station.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. P.W.30, the Inspector of Police received V.H.F. message about the
\ndeath of Murugarajan, while he was engaged in patrolling at 01.00 A.M. and came
\ndown to the Police Station.  In the Police Station, he received complaint from
\nP.W.1 and lodged F.I.R., Ex.P33 by registering a case in Crime No.2133 of 2003
\nunder Sections 392 read with 307 and 302 I.P.C.  He sent the First Information
\nReport to the Court and copies to the concerned officials through P.W.25, the
\nHead Constable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. The Inspector of Police P.W.30, proceeded to the scene of crime
\nat 02.45 A.M. on 15.08.2003 prepared Ex.P34, Observation Mahazar and drew rough
\nsite plan, Ex.P35 in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and another mahazer with
\nreference to the inner view of the bus Ex.P37.  He also recovered chappal under
\ncover of mahazar Ex.P38.  He came to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and
\nheld inquest over the dead body of Murugarajan, in the presence of panchayadars
\nand prepared inquest report, Ex.P39.  He recorded the statements of the
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. The doctor, P.W.27, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College
\nHospital conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Murugarajan and
\nissued Ex.P27, Post Mortem Certificate with an opinion that the deceased would
\nappear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple heavy cut injuries
\nabout 12 hours prior to postmortem examination.  He found as many as 13 cut and
\nstab injuries on the dead body, which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“1) Cut injury right cheek 8 x 1.5 cm x bone deep, extending from the
\nright side of nose to the right cheek above the moustache line;\n<\/p>\n
\t2) Heavy cut injury top of right shoulder 14x5cmxbone deep.  On further
\ndissection this would has cut the right collar bone and right side ribs 1 and 2
\nin their outer aspects;\n<\/p>\n
\t3) Five cut injuries on the upper part of right side of back, 4 over the
\nright shoulder blade and one below the shoulder blade.  a)4x1x2 cm; b)
\n7.5x3cmx3cm; c)10x4cmx4cm.  On further dissection it has entered the right
\npleural cavity and entered the back of right lower lobe of lung causing 2x1x1
\ninjury. d)5×2.5cmx2cm; e)11x4cmx4cm;\n<\/p>\n
\t4) Cut injury top of right arm, 3x1x1 cm;\n<\/p>\n
\t5) Cut injury right forearm 13x4cmxbone deep.  The underlying muscles,
\nvessels and radius bone found cut;\n<\/p>\n
\t6) cut injury on the back of right hand 12x4cmxbone deep.  The underlying
\nmuscles vessels, base of thumb, index and middle finger found cut with
\ncorresponding cut injuries on the phalanges of these fingers;\n<\/p>\n
\t7) Cut injury left forearm near the wrist 6x3cmxbone deep.  Underlying
\nmuscles, vessels and radius bone found cut at side.\n<\/p>\n
\t8) Cut injury aspect of left wrist 4x2x1 cm; transverse cut injury back of
\nleft hand 10×4 cm xbone deep.  Underlying muscles vessels, tendons and
\nmetacarpal bones found cut;\n<\/p>\n
\t9) Cut injury outer aspect of left arm in its upper part 14X3cmx3.5 cm;\n<\/p>\n
\t10) Vertical cut injury 4x3x2 cm upper part of right side of chest; 4 cm
\nbelow the right collar bone (tailing 2 cm towards the collar bone);\n<\/p>\n
\t11) Transverse linear abrasion left shoulder blade 5×1 cm;\n<\/p>\n
\t12) Stab injury mid back on the right side 2x1x1 cm, upper end sharp,
\nlower end blunt;\n<\/p>\n
\t13) Transverse cut injury back of scalp on the right side 4x1cmxbone
\ndeep”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. On 17.08.2003, acting on a tip-off, P.W.30, the Inspector of
\nPolice went to Palayamkottai market area and arrested the first and second
\naccused in the presence of P.Ws.21 and 23, the Revenue Inspector and the Village
\nAdministrative Officer respectively.  Both of them voluntarily gave confession
\nstatements separately, which were recorded in the presence of the said
\nwitnesses.  Ex.P12 is the admissible portion of the confession statement given
\nby the first accused and Ex.P13 is the admissible portion available in the
\nconfession statement recorded from the second accused.  The first accused
\nproduced a gold ring with the inscription of letters A.M., which was seized
\nunder cover of mahazar Ex.P14.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. Both the accused took P.W.30 and the witnesses to Tirunelveli
\nNainarkulam market and identified the third and fourth accused.  They were
\narrested by the Investigating Officer, who also recorded confession statements
\ngiven by them on their own accord.  Ex.P15 is the admissible portion in the
\nconfession statement of the third accused, by means of which he produced pant,
\nshirt and cash of Rs.40,000\/-, which were seized under cover of mahazar Ex.P18.
\nEx.P16 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the fourth
\naccused.  All the accused identified the fifth accused in Ariyanayakipuram and
\nhe was also arrested by P.W.30 and his confession statement was also recorded.
\nEx.P17 is the admissible portion, under which he produced M.O.1, brown colour
\nbag and cash Rs.40,000\/-, which was inside the said bag marked as M.O.13 series
\nand also a receipt book M.O.3 with name “P.K.T.Kanagavel & Co”.  They were
\nseized under cover of mahazar Ex.P23.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. The second accused took the police and the witnesses to his
\nhouse and produced M.Os.24 and 25 his pant and shirt, M.O.4, a sword with a
\ncover of 51 cms and also cash Rs.40,000\/- marked as M.O.24 series, which were
\nrecovered under cover of mahazar Ex.P19.  The first accused from his house
\nproduced M.Os.27 and 28, his pant and shirt, M.O.14, the prescription slip, a
\nblock colour rexin bag M.O.2, cash of Rs.50849\/-, M.O.29 series, lion address
\nnotebook M.O.9 and Kozhival aruval M.O.6, which were recovered under the mahazar
\nEx.P6.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. The fourth accused had taken the Investigating Officer and the
\nwitnesses to his house and produced M.Os.11 and 13, his T-shirt and pant, a
\nkozhival aruval with a length of 44 1\/2 c.m., M.O.7 and a cash of Rs.40,000\/-
\nM.O.31 series, which were seized by mahazar Ex.P21 under attestation of the
\nwitnesses.  The first accused also produced M.O.12, a copper rod, which was
\nseized under Attakshi Ex.P22.  The accused were sent for judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. The Investigating Officer examined all the concerned witnesses
\nand recorded their statements including the doctors.  He gave requisition Ex.P40
\nto send the case properties for chemical analysis.  Ex.P42 is the Chemistry
\nDivision Report and Ex.P43 is the Biology Division Report.  He also examined
\nP.W.4, the conductor of the bus and seized the invoice of the bus trip sheet,
\nwhich was marked as M.O.32.  After the autopsy was conducted, the clothes on the
\ndead body M.Os.33 and 34 were entrusted to the I.O., which were obtained by him
\nunder Form No.95.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. P.W.28, the Finger Print Expert lifted seven finger prints from
\nthe bus and has given Ex.P29 and Ex.P30 reports, stating that the finger prints
\nlifted in the bus are tallying with the finger prints of the accused Nos.1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. P.W.26, the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli had
\nconducted test identification parade in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai.  He
\nadopted the procedures and completed the identification parade and furnished a
\nreport, Ex.P26.  He has mentioned in his report that P.W.1 identified the second
\nand fourth accused, while P.W.2 had identified the first and fourth accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. On completion of the investigation, P.W.30, the Investigating
\nOfficer laid the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 341, 506(ii),
\n342 read with 397, 302, 120-B and 411 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. The prosecution before the trial Court marched as many as 30
\nwitnesses and marked 46 documents.  The accused examined one witness as D.W.1
\nand marked one document, viz., Ex.D1, copy of the Accident Register.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. While all the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b)
\nCr.P.C. with reference to the discriminating materials available against them in
\nthe prosecution evidence, they denied the complicity in the offence.
\nConsidering and appreciating the oral evidence on record, scrutinizing the
\ndocuments and circumstances of this case, the trial Court came out with a
\nJudgment of conviction, which is under challenge before this Court in these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. The learned counsel for the appellant Chidampara Krishnan @
\nDuriappa @ Durai, Mr.V.Kathirvelu would contend that the occurrence tookplace
\nduring night hours and even in the bus, there may not be sufficient light to
\nidentify the accused and the evidence of the witnesses are improbable and hence
\nthey could not be relied upon and the evidence would indicate that the witnesses
\ncould not have been present in the scene of crime.  It is his further contention
\nthat even in the test identification parade conducted by the Judicial
\nMagistrate, the accused were not properly identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 and all the
\naccused had stated before the Judicial Magistrate that the police apprehended
\nthem while they were in their house, took them to the police station and showed
\nthem to the four witnesses and they also took photographs.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The learned counsel Mr.Palanivelayutham, who is  appearing for the
\naccused Maharajan argues that while the circumstances are carefully considered,
\nit could be seen that the First Information Report was lodged belatedly.  The
\nevidence of the prosecution witnesses do not contain truth.  The recovery of
\nmaterial objects including the cash have not been established beyond reasonable
\ndoubt; that P.Ws.21 and 23 are the Government officials and hence they obliged
\nand that the scientific evidence is also not extending helping hand to the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is heard on
\nthe merits of the case and also on the contentions projected by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.08.2003 mid night, the
\nwitnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the deceased Murugarajan boarded Ganapathi
\nTransport bus in Tirunelveli Town Puttarathi Amman Kovil bus stop and while the
\nbus was proceeding beyond Speaker Chellapandiyanar statue in Vannarpettai along
\nbye pass road towards Tirunelveli new bus stand, the accused who were seated,
\nraised and committed the offences as stated by the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. With reference to the sequence of events of occurrence, the oral
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are identical.  They say that after collecting money
\nfrom their customers in Tirunelveli Town, they were coming by bus.  P.W.1 was
\nkeeping a sum of Rs.1,40,000\/- in his bag and the deceased Murugarajan was
\nhaving a sum of Rs.70,000\/- in a bag kept by him.  The occurrence is portrayed
\nby them that the first and third accused, while the bus was going, went near the
\ndriver and the fourth accused came towards P.W.1 and asked him to give the bag,
\nwhich contains the money as well as the receipt book and immediately snatched
\naway the bag from him.  The first accused threatened the driver to stop the bus
\nand the driver stopped the bus.  The third accused asked the deceased
\nMurugarajan to give him the bag, but he refused, hence he cut him on his left
\nshoulder.  Even then he did not part with the bag.  So, the first accused cut
\nhim in his right side shoulder.  Inspite of the efforts made by the second and
\nfourth accused to snatch the bag from Murugarajan, he did not allow it and hence
\nboth of them pulled him by hand outside the bus.  Thereafter, the evidence of
\nP.W.1 proceeds that, all the four accused indiscriminately hacked him with
\naruval and stabbed with knife.  The evidence of P.W.2 is also on the same line.
\nIt is to be noted that nothing in their chief examinations have been shattered
\nwhile they were examined in cross.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the crew of the bus.  P.W.3, the driver says that
\nwhile he was driving the bus beyond B.S.N.L. Office, one person showed aruval
\nand asked him to stop the bus.  He stopped the bus and left the place.  After
\nfive minutes, P.Ws.1 and 2 came and the injured was removed to the infirmary.
\nP.W.4 speaks as deposed by P.W.3. Both of them turned hostile to the prosecution
\nand were examined in cross by the prosecution.  As far as the oral evidence of
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned they are natural, convincing and cogent.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. The Investigating Officer examined as many as 11 witnesses, P.Ws.8 to
\n19, who are businessmen in Tirunelveli having transactions with P.Ws.1 and 2 and
\nthe deceased.  In their evidence, they have categorically and candidly deposed
\nthat the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased were having business
\ntransactions with them and on 14.08.2003, they came to meet them and received
\nthe money from them, which were payable by them.  By their evidence, it has been
\nvividly established that prior to the occurrence in Tirunelveli Town, the above
\nsaid trio met those witnesses and collected outstanding money.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. As far as the medical evidence is concerned, the doctor P.W.27, who
\nhas conducted autopsy over the corpse of Murugarajan found as many as 13
\ninjuries and opined that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to
\nmultiple heavy cut injuries about 12 hours prior to postmortem.  As regards the
\nscientific evidence on M.Os.  viz., the tarred stones, cotton swab smeared with
\nblood, which was taken in the scene of crime, the shirts and pants of the
\naccused, the bags which contained money, the billhooks and the knife used by the
\naccused, they were subjected to biological examination, chemical examination as
\nwell as the serological analysis.  All the articles were found to have contained
\n‘A’ group of human origin blood, except a cotton swap and a shirt.  To
\nconsiderable extent, the above said scientific evidence support the versions of
\nP.Ws.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. P.W.26, the Judicial Magistrate has taken up the job of conducting
\ntest identification parade.  He has followed the settled procedures and came out
\nwith a report Ex.P26.  From his evidence, it is shown that P.W.1 had identified
\nthe second and fourth accused while, P.W.2 identified 1 to 4 accused.  There is
\nno circumstance to doubt the conduct of test identification parade and there is
\nno impediment for this Court to place reliance upon the report Ex.P26.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. As far as the recovery portion of the case is concerned, the arrest,
\nrecording of confessions statements, production of material objects including
\ncash by the accused and their seizure have been proved beyond all the reasonable
\ndoubts by the examination of P.Ws.21 and 23.  No doubt, both of them are
\nGovernment officials.  But it is not at all a ground to lay suspicion over their
\nversions, if truth is discernible from their evidence.  There could be no
\nobstacle to observe that they duly corroborate the oral accounts of prosecution
\nwitnesses.  While their cross examinations are carefully gone through by this
\nCourt, nothing is available to discredit their testimonies furnished in their
\nchief examinations.  Hence, the recoveries of the material objects have been
\nestablished and they deserve to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. We have heard both sides with rapt attention and paid utmost
\nconsideration to the arguments advanced by them.  As adverted to supra, the oral
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are natural, clear and portraying the occurrence.
\nTheir evidence are properly and duly corroborated by other circumstances, viz.,
\nthe recoveries of material objects, scientific evidence, test identification
\nparade and report produced by the finger print expert.  As far as the report of
\nthe finger print expert is concerned, they could not be brushed aside since it
\nis reliable scientific evidence when no motive or any violation of procedures
\nwas suggested to the finger print expert and smelling rat on it.  A conspectus
\nof all the materials in this case paves way to conclude that the accused were
\navailable in the scene of crime and with the intention of physically eliminating
\nMurugarajan and committing robbery, they travelled in the bus and they
\nsuccessfully achieved their object.  Sufficient materials are available in this
\ncase to establish the guilt of the accused. We are of the considered view, the
\nprosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond all
\nreasonable doubts.  The observations and findings of the trial Court in finding
\nthem guilty and convicting them are quite appropriate and hence any interference
\nwith the Judgment of the trial Court is not at all warranted.  By upshot of our
\nabove discussion, we do not upset the decision of trial Court. Since, the trial
\nCourt has thoroughly analysed the crux of the case and sentenced the appellants
\nas per law, its Judgment has to be confirmed.  The appeals are devoid of merits.
\nThey suffer dismissal.  In fine, both the appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
smn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The  Additional District & Sessions Judge,
\n  Fast Track Court No.II,
\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.A.(MD)No.505 of 2006 and Crl.A.(MD)No.129 of 2007 Chidambara Krishnan alias Duraiappa alias Durai … Appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.505\/2006 \/ Accused No.3 […]<\/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-109683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 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\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-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=\"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-28T02:42:40+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T02:42:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3326,\"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\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T02:42:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 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":"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 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\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-28T02:42:40+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T02:42:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008"},"wordCount":3326,"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\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008","name":"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T02:42:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambara-krishnan-alias-vs-the-state-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chidambara Krishnan Alias vs The State on 21 April, 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\/109683","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=109683"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109683\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}