{"id":109746,"date":"2003-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003"},"modified":"2017-08-13T07:18:36","modified_gmt":"2017-08-13T01:48:36","slug":"mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 21\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  N.DHINAKAR\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE  S.ASHOK KUMAR\n\nCriminal Appeal No.  448 of 2000\n\n\n1. Mariappan,\n   Son of Perumal.\n\n2. Mariappan,\n   Son of Arumugam                              ... Appellants.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep. by\nInspector of Police,\nTirunelveli Palam Police Station.               ... Respondent\n\n\nPrayer:  Appeal against the  judgment  passed  by  the  learned  I  Additional\nSessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.  59 of 1998 dated :  21.1 .2000.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.M.Paul Rajendran\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.M.K.Subramanian\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.side)\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.  DHINAKAR, J)
\n        The appellants, two in number, who in the judgment will be referred to
\nas “A.1” and “A.2”, for the sake of convenience, were tried along with another
\nby  name  Immanuel,  who was arrayed as A.3 before the learned Sessions Judge.
\nThe allegation against A.1, A.2 and A.3 is that at 11.30 p.m.   on  14.5.1997,
\nthe  accused, in furtherance of the common intention of each other, caused the
\ndeath of the deceased, Ganapathy, son of Manickam, by A.1 cutting him  on  the
\nneck  and A.2 also cutting him on the back of neck and A.3 stabbing him on the
\nstomach and on account of the said cut  injuries  suffered  by  the  deceased,
\nGanapathy, his  head  was severed and he died.  To prove the above allegation,
\nthe prosecution, before the trial Court, examined  P.Ws.1  to  16  and  marked
\nExs.P.1 to P.18  as  well  as  M.Os.   1 to 8.  The learned trial Judge, while
\naccepting the prosecution version as against A.1 and A.2 and  convicting  them
\nunder  Sections 302 read with 34 IPC., acquitted A.3 on the ground that he was
\nnot implicated as an accused in the first information statement, Ex.P.1, given
\nby P.W.1 and that he did not also give the identifying features of  A.3,  when
\nhe gave  the  complaint  to  the police.  On being convicted, A.1 and A.2 were
\nsentenced each to imprisonment for life and each one of them was also directed
\nto pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- with a default sentence of three  months  rigorous
\nimprisonment.   The  said  conviction and sentence are being challenged in the
\nappeal, while the acquittal of A.3 had become final,  as  the  State  has  not
\nchosen to prefer any appeal against the said acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The brief facts are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        P.W.1 is  the  elder  brother  of the deceased and P.W.2.  The accused
\nwere known to P.W.1.  P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased were masons by profession and
\nduring the relevant period, P.W.1 was residing at Lakshmipuram in  C.N.Village
\nand prior to that, he was residing at Kuruthudaiyarpuram.  Lakshmi and Chandra
\nwere  related  to  P.W.1 and the deceased and during the relevant period, they
\nwere residing at Kuruthudaiyar Puram village.    They  were  eking  out  their
\nlivelihood by  working  at construction sites.  A.1 and A.2, who are masons by
\nprofession, developed intimacy with Lakshmi and Chandra, who were deserted  by
\ntheir respective  husbands.    A.2  developed  intimacy  with  Chandra and A.1
\ndeveloped intimacy with Lakshmi.  This was not to the liking of the  deceased,
\nGanapathy  and  he, therefore, advised Lakshmi and Chandra not to have illicit
\nrelationship with either of the accused.  The said advice of the deceased  was
\npromptly conveyed  by Lakshmi and Chandra to A.1 and A.2.  On account of this,
\nthe accused bore a grudge against the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  At about 5.00 p.m.  on 14.5.1997, P.Ws.1,  2,  one  Raja  and  the
\ndeceased were  standing in front of the provision store of P.W.4.  A.1 and A.2
\nwent there and picked up a quarrel with the deceased.   They  also  threatened
\nthe  deceased  not  to  interfere  in  their  affair by telling him that if he
\ninterferes, they will remove his head.    The  witnesses,  who  were  present,
\npacified the accused  and  sent  them  away.  At about 10.00 p.m.  on the same
\nnight, P.W.1 developed cough as he was a T.  B.  patient.  He, therefore, left
\nhis house to go to the medical store to buy tablets and along with him he took
\nP.W.2.  While P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding towards a junction and were near  a
\npublic lavatory,  they heard someone pleading for mercy.  They went behind the
\nlavatory to find the deceased standing there surrounded by A.1 to  A.3.    A.1
\nholding  the  hand  of the deceased, cut him, which fell on his left shoulder.
\nA.2, with an aruval, cut him on the neck.   The  deceased  fell  down  on  the
\nseptic tank, which was on the west of public lavatory.  A.3 stabbed him on the
\nstomach.   A.1  cut  the deceased on the neck indiscriminately and severed the
\nhead.  P.Ws.1 and 2 pleaded with the accused not to cut their brother; but the
\naccused threatened them by telling them that they will meet the same  fate  if
\nthey interfere.  They also threatened the witnesses not to inform others about
\nthe incident  and  ran  away towards west.  P.W.1, leaving P.W.2 near the dead
\nbody of his brother, went and informed the Village  Nattanmai,  Shanmugam  and
\nthey  proceeded  to  Tirunelveli  Bridge Police Station, which they reached by
\n2.00 a.m.  on 15.5.1997.  At the police station, P.W.1 narrated  the  incident
\nto P.W.11,  the Sub Inspector of Police.  P.W.11 reduced the said statement of
\nP.W.1 into writing.  The said statement of P.W.1 is Ex.P.1.  P.W.11 registered
\na case in Crime No.  302 of 1997 against A.1, A.2  and  another  person  under
\nSection 302 IPC.    by  preparing  express  reports.  Ex.P.13 is a copy of the
\nprinted first information report.  The express reports were sent to the higher
\nofficials including the Inspector of Police, P.W.14.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  P.W.14, on receipt of the information, reached Tirunelveli  Bridge
\nPolice  station,  where  he  was given a copy of the printed first information
\nreport.  He took up investigation in  the  crime  and  reached  the  scene  of
\noccurrence at 6.00 a.m.  and in the presence of P.W.3, prepared an observation
\nmahazar, Ex.P.2, between  6.00  a.m.   and 6.30 a.m.  He also prepared a rough
\nsketch, Ex.P.17.  He seized blood-stained cement, M.O.4, sample cement,  M.O.5
\nand  a  pair  of  slippers, M.O.6, under a mahazar Ex.P.3 attested by the same
\nwitnesses.  Inquest over the body of Ganapathy was conducted between 8.00 a.m.
\nand 11.00 a.m.  in the presence of Panchayatdars and at the time  of  inquest,
\nP.Ws.1 and  2  were questioned and their statements were recorded.  Ex.P.18 is
\nthe inquest report.  The officer, after the inquest, issued a  requisition  to
\nthe doctor and sent the dead body to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   On  receipt  of  the  requisition,  P.W.13,  Reader in Pathology,
\nTirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, conducted autopsy on the  dead  body
\nof Ganapathy and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
1.2 x 1 cm x muscle deep defence cut injury seen on the base of right terminal
\nphalanx.  The underlying soft tissues found cut.  Bone  normal.\n<\/p>\n
2.Irregular abrasions seen on the right lower abdomen.\n<\/p>\n
3.Head and  Trunk  seen  separately.   On alignment, it belongs to one and the
\nsame individual.\n<\/p>\n
Trunk:  Head severed at the level of C.3 vertebra and the raw area mesuring 18
\nx 14 cm.  The margins are sharp with surrounding bruising several tags of  cut
\nportion of  skin  at  the  margins indicating multiple cuts.  Apart from this,
\nthere is a a flap of skin, with soft tissue and with cut portions of  cervical
\nvertebra seen  on the left side close to the clavicle.  The soft tissues along
\nthe left clavicle were found cut and exposed.  The cut  portions  of  Trachea,
\nOesophagus found protruding with fresh bleeding points.\n<\/p>\n
4.9 x 4 cm.  cut injury seen along the right clavicle extending to the axilla.
\nThe soft  tissues  at  site  found  cut.   The right clavicle found cut in the
\ncentre.\n<\/p>\n
5.Three parallel (3 x 3 cm each) cut injuries seen  just  below  the  previous
\ninjuries.  The soft tissue found cut.\n<\/p>\n
6.HEAD:   Heavy  cut  (7 x 2 cm) injury seen on the left side of face from the
\nlateral end of mustache to the ankle of mandible.  The angle of  the  mandible
\nalong with soft tissues found cut.  The head found severed at the level of C.3
\nalong with the soft tissues and neck structures.\n<\/p>\n
7.The dimensions  of  the  head  cut  injuries  were 18 x 6 cm.  margins shows
\nseveral cuts with tags of skin hanging from the edges.\n<\/p>\n
8.ON DISSECTION OF SCALP:  3 x 1 cm.  bruising seen on the  centre  of  scalp.
\nVault:  Normal.  Brain:  C\/s.  Pale.  Base of Skull:  Normal.\n<\/p>\n
9.Stab injury  6 x 4 cm seen just below the umbilicus.  On further exploration
\nthe ileum cut through and through.\n<\/p>\n
The doctor issued Ex.P.16, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion  that
\nthe death was on account of decapitation of the head.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   P.W.14,  continuing  with his investigation, questioned P.W.4 and
\nothers, whose statements were recorded.  On 19.5.1997, he  questioned  P.W.13,
\nthe doctor, who conducted autopsy and his statement was recorded.  He arrested
\nA.3 at 7.00  a.m.    on  20.5.1997  at  Tirunelveli  railway station.  A.3 was
\nquestioned and he gave a statement.  The admissible portion of  the  statement
\nof  A.3  is  Ex.P.4 and in pursuance of the said statement, he took the police
\nparty to a Mandapam at Kurukuthurai,  where  from  a  bush,  he  produced  two
\naruvals  and  a  knife,  M.Os.1 to 3, which were seized under a mahazar Ex.P.5
\nattested by P.W.5.  A.3 was brought to the police station and  sent  to  Court
\nfor remand.    On  the  same day, he questioned P.W.5 and another and recorded
\ntheir statements.  On 23.5.1997  he  came  to  know  that  A.1  and  A.2  have
\nsurrendered before  Judicial  Magistrate, Tiruchendur.  On 27.5.1997 he gave a
\nrequisition to the Magistrate to conduct test identification  parade  for  the
\npurpose of identifying A.3.\n<\/p>\n
        7.    On   receipt  of  the  requisition,  Judicial  Magistrate  No.6,
\nTirunelveli, conducted test identification parade on 6.6.1997.   At  the  test
\nidentification  parade, P.W.1 could not identify A.3; but he was identified by
\nP.W.2.  Ex.P.8 are the proceedings of the learned Magistrate in respect of the
\ntest identification parade conducted by him.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  P.W.14, continuing  with  his  investigation,  sent  the  material
\nobjects to  Court.    He  gave  a requisition to the Court to forward them for
\nanalysis.  He retired on 31.5.1997 and handed over the case file  to  the  Sub
\nInspector of  Police  on  the date of his retirement.  Later, the final report
\nwas filed.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.    on
\nthe incriminating  circumstances  appearing against them.  They denied all the
\nincriminating circumstances.  They did not examine any witness on their side.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellants  (A.1  and  A.2)
\nsubmits  that  the occurrence could have taken place much later to 11.0 0 p.m.
\nand the prosecution having failed to  examine  any  independent  witness,  the
\ntrial  Court  was  not justified in convicting the two accused on the basis of
\nthe evidence of two close relatives.  We have  heard  the  learned  Government
\nAdvocate  (Crl.side)  on  the  above  contentions  and  perused  the  recorded
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The cause of the death of Ganapathy is beyond dispute.    P.W.13,
\nthe  doctor,  conducted  autopsy  on  the dead body of Ganapathy and found the
\ninjuries, which he noted in Ex.P.16, the  post-mortem  certificate.    In  his
\ndeposition  before  Court,  he  has  stated  that  the death was on account of
\ndecapitation.  On the medical evidence, we hold that Ganapathy died on account
\nof homicidal violence.  The said fact was also not  disputed  by  the  accused
\nbefore the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   P.Ws.1  and  2,  the  brothers of the deceased, were examined to
\nprove that A.1 and A.2 inflicted the injuries, which resulted  in  his  death.
\nIt  is  the  evidence  of  P.W.1 that Lakshmi and Chandra, who were related to
\nthem, developed intimacy with A.1 and A.2 and the deceased advised them not to
\ncontinue their relationship with A.1 and A.2.  It is the further  evidence  of
\nP.W.1 that Lakshmi and Chandra, in turn, informed A.1 and A.2 about the advice
\nrendered  by  the deceased and the accused were, therefore, not happy with the
\ndeceased.  According to P.W.1, at about  5.00  p.m.    on  14.5.1997,  he  was
\nstanding  in front of the provision store of P.W.4 along with the deceased and
\nhis brother, Murugan and Raja was also there.  It is  the  evidence  of  P.W.1
\nthat the accused, on seeing the deceased at that place, asked him as to why he
\nis  interfering  in  their personal affairs and also took him to task and that
\nthey threatened the  deceased  with  his  life  by  telling  him  that  if  he
\ninterferes, his  head  will be severed.  This is said to be the motive for the
\nincident, which took place at about 11.00 a.m.  or 11.30 a.m.    on  the  same
\nday.  According  to  P.W.1, he was a T.B.  patient and at about 10.00 p.m., he
\ndeveloped some respiratory problem and wanted to purchase medicine.    He  has
\nstated  that he left his house for the medical store taking along with him his
\nbrother, P.W.2 and while they were on their way to  the  medical  store,  they
\nheard someone pleading for mercy and the sound was heard emanating from behind
\na public lavatory.  According to P.Ws.1 and 2, both of them went there only to
\nfind the  deceased  surrounded  by A.1 to A.3.  They have further deposed that
\nthe deceased was first cut by A.1 followed by A.2 and after receiving the said
\ncut injury from A.2, the deceased fell down on the septic tank.    A.3,  then,
\nstabbed the deceased.  They have also stated that A.1 indiscriminately cut the
\ndeceased on  the  neck  and  severed  the  head.    It  is the evidence of the
\nwitnesses that they were also threatened by the accused with  their  life  and
\nthat after the incident, they went towards west.  The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2
\nfurther  indicate  that  after the incident, P.W.2 was left near the dead body
\nand P.W.1 went and informed Shanmugam, the Village Nattanmai and that both  of
\nthem  went  to  Tirunelveli Bridge Police Station and a complaint was given by
\nP.W.1 to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police at 2.00 a.m.  The said complaint,
\nwhich was registered as a crime at 2.00 a.m., was received  by  the  Court  at
\n6.00 a.m.,  as could be seen from the original records.  The occurrence having
\ntaken place at 11.00 p.m.  on 14.5.1997, the complaint having been  registered
\nas a  crime  at  2.00  a.m.    on  15.5.1997,  which  was also received by the
\nMagistrate at 6.00 a.m.  on the same day, there is  no  delay  in  laying  the
\ncomplaint.   In  the  said  complaint,  P.W.1 has mentioned A.1 and A.2 as the
\nassailants of the deceased and has also stated that yet  another  person,  who
\ncould be  identified,  inflicted  the  stab injury.  As we have already stated
\nthat A.3 was acquitted because P.W.1 did not give the identifying features  of
\nA.3 and  a  perusal  of  the  evidence  of  P.W.6  shows  that  though P.  W.2
\nidentified A.3 at the test identification parade, he  was  not  identified  by
\nP.W.1.  In any event, the fact remains that in the complaint, Ex.P.1, the name
\nof  A.1 and A.2, who stand convicted and who are the appellants in the appeal,
\nhave been implicated as persons, who  inflicted  the  fatal  injuries  on  the
\ndeceased.   On going through the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find no
\nmaterial in favour of  the  defence  and  the  only  suggestion  made  to  the
\nwitnesses  is that they were not there at the time of incident and later, came
\nto the scene of occurrence on coming to know about the occurrence.  We find no
\ninfirmity in their evidence  and  merely  because  they  happened  to  be  the
\nrelatives of  the  deceased,  their evidence cannot be rejected.  It is common
\nknowledge that close relatives will be more interested in implicating the real
\nassailant and will not come out with the false version implicating  a  person,
\nwho is  not  connected  with  the  crime.  The defence did not also elicit any
\nanswer in favour of the accused to  show  that  P.Ws.1  and  2  were  inimical
\ntowards the  accused  for  them  to  implicate  them.   On going through their
\nevidence, we find no infirmity in it.  It is no doubt  true  that  there  were
\nseveral  houses  near  the  scene of occurrence and the non-examination of the
\npersons, who were present in those houses at that time, in our  view,  is  not
\nfatal to the  prosecution.   The occurrence had taken place at 11.30 p.m.  and
\nmost of the inmates of the house would have been in their beds.  P.Ws.1 and  2
\nwere  there  at  the  scene of occurrence as they were proceeding to a medical
\nstore to purchase tablets and therefore, had an opportunity of witnessing  the
\nincident  and  merely  because  there  were  several  houses near the scene of
\noccurrence, this Court cannot infer  that  the  inmates  of  the  houses  also
\nwitnessed  the  incident and the prosecution withheld those witnesses from the
\nCourt.  The contention of the counsel on the above point, therefore, fails.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The other contention of the counsel  that  the  occurrence  could
\nhave taken  place  much after 11.30 p.m.  is to be stated only to be rejected.
\nIt is no doubt true that P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted autopsy has  stated
\nthat  it  is  possible  that  the deceased would have died about 9 to 10 hours
\nprior to autopsy, which was conducted at 12.30 p.m.  on 15.5.1997.  The  above
\nevidence of  P.W.13  is opinion in nature.  The doctor, of course, found fully
\ndigested food particles and has also  stated  that  he  found  fully  digested
\nnon-vegetarian food  in  the stomach of the deceased.  In this background, the
\nevidence of P.W.1 has to be considered.  He has stated that after the incident
\nat 5.00 p.m., which took place in front of the shop of P.W.4, he  returned  to
\nhis house and took food along with his brothers and later left for the shop at
\n10.00 p.m.,  when  he developed some difficulty.  This shows that the deceased
\nhad his last meals by about 6.00 p.m.  or  7.00  p.m.    on  14.5.1998.    The
\ndoctor,  in  cross-examination,  has  stated  that  as  the deceased had taken
\nnon-vegetarian food, it will take about four hours  for  digestion.    If  the
\ndeceased had  taken his last meals at 7.00 p.m.  – there is no direct evidence
\nas to when the deceased had his last meals; but  it  could  be  inferred  from
\nP.W.1’s  evidence  that  the  deceased could have taken his last meals at 7.00
\np.m.  – then the evidence of the doctor that the deceased would have  met  his
\nend after four hours after his meals fits in with the prosecution version that
\nthe deceased was attacked at 11.00 p.m.  We, therefore, accept the prosecution
\nversion  and hold that A.1 and A.2 inflicted injuries on the deceased at 11.00
\np.m.  and the injuries inflicted by A.1 are fatal.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The learned counsel finally submits that A.2 may  be  spared,  as
\naccording  to  him,  the  materials  do not indicate that he shared the common
\nintention of A.1 in causing the death of Ganapathy.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  We are unable to accept the said submission.  The facts, which we
\nhave extracted above,  show  that  after  A.1  commenced  the  attack  on  the
\ndeceased, A.2  followed  him  by  cutting  him  on the neck.  On receiving the
\ninjury at the hands of A.2, the deceased, Ganapathy, fell on the  septic  tank
\nand  later, A.1 inflicted indiscriminate cuts on the neck and also severed his
\nhead.  Section 34 IPC.   lays  down  the  rule  of  joint  responsibility  for
\ncriminal  act  performed by a plurality of persons and even mere distance from
\nthe scene of crime cannot exclude the culpability of  the  crimes.    Criminal
\nsharing,  overt  or  covert, by active presence or by distant direction making
\nout a certain measure of jointness in the commission of the act is the essence
\nof Section 34 and for appreciating the ambit and scope of Section 34 IPC., the
\npreceding Sections 32 and 33 have always to be kept in mind.  Under Section 32
\nIPC.  acts include illegal omissions and Section 33 defines the “act” to  mean
\nas  well  a  series of acts as a single act and the word “omission” denotes as
\nwell a series of omissions as a single omission.  The  distinction  between  a
\n“common intention” and a “similar intention” which is real and substantial, is
\nalso not  to  be  lost  sight of.  The common intention implies a pre-arranged
\nplan but in a given case it may develop at the  spur  of  the  moment  in  the
\ncourse of  the  commission  of  the  offence.    Such  common  intention which
\ndeveloped at the spur of the moment was different from the  similar  intention
\nactuated by  a  number of persons at the same time.  The distinction between ”
\ncommon intention” and “similar intention” may be fine  but  is  nonetheless  a
\nreal one  and  if  overlooked  may lead to miscarriage of justice.  To attract
\nSection 34 IPC.  two postulates are  indispensable.    (1)  The  criminal  act
\n(consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but
\nmore than  one  person.    (2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively
\nresulting  in  the  commission  of  criminal  offence  should  have  been   in
\nfurtherance of the common intention of all such persons vide SURESH -vs- STATE
\nOF U.P.  (JT 2001 (3) SC 336.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   When  we apply the above principles to the facts of the case, it
\ncould be seen that when P.Ws.1 and 2 saw A.1 and A.2, both of them were  armed
\nwith  aruvals and A.1 inflicted the first cut on the deceased followed by A.2.
\nAfter A.2 inflicted the cut on the deceased, Ganapathy, he fell  down  on  the
\nseptic  tank,  which enabled A.1 to inflict several other cuts on the neck and
\nresulted in complete severance of his head from the body.    If  A.2  did  not
\nshare the common intention of A.1, then there was no necessity for A.2 to have
\nbeen  present at the place along with him arming himself with an aruval and he
\nalso joined A.1 in  attacking  the  deceased  by  cutting  him.    The  facts,
\ntherefore,  show  that A.2 shared the common intention of A.1 and he is liable
\nto be punished with the aid of Section 34 IPC.  The trial Judge was  justified
\nin finding  both  the  accused  guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.  We
\nfind no reason to interfere with the conviction  and  sentence.    The  appeal
\ndeserves to the dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n
bs\/<\/p>\n
To,\n<\/p>\n
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.-do- through the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Bridge Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Collector, Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Director General of Police, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2000 1. Mariappan, Son of Perumal. 2. Mariappan, Son of Arumugam … Appellants. -Vs- State […]<\/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-109746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 - 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\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-13T01:48:36+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-13T01:48:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3683,\"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\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-13T01:48:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 - 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\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-13T01:48:36+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-13T01:48:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003"},"wordCount":3683,"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\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003","name":"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-13T01:48:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariappan-vs-state-rep-by-on-21-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mariappan vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/109746","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=109746"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109746\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}