{"id":115201,"date":"2010-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-13T15:47:16","modified_gmt":"2015-09-13T10:17:16","slug":"rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/01\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO\n\nCRL.A.(MD)No.557 OF 2008\n\n1.Rajapandi\n2.Balaraman\t                       ... Appellants\/A1 and A4\n\nVs\n\nState through the Inspector of Police,\nThirumangalam Taluk Police Station.\nIn Crime No.18 of 2008                  ... Respondent\/Complainant\n\n\nCriminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment of\nconviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge,\nMadurai, dated 02.12.2008 made in S.C.No.237 of 2008.\n\n!For Appellants    .... Mr.T.K.Gopalan\n^For Respondent    .... Mr.P.N.Pandidurai\n                        Additional Public Prosecutor\n\t     \t\t\n\t *****\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was passed by P.MURGESEN, J)<\/p>\n
\tThis Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence
\nimposed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 02.12.2008,
\nmade in S.C.No.237 of 2008, on the appellant\/A1 and A4.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The case of the prosecution is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.1-Lakhsmi is the resident of Sengapadai.  Her son is deceased
\nVenkidasamy. A1 to A3 are the children of Venkidasamy.  A4 is the brother-in-law
\nof deceased Venkidasamy. Just prior to the occurrence, the deceased assaulted
\nhis wife Lakhsmi. So, on the fateful day, i.e., on  28.01.2008 at about 11.00
\nP.M., the accused entered into the house of the deceased with a help of ladder
\nand assaulted him. P.W.2-Krishnasamy is the younger brother of Venkidasamy.  He
\nwas present when the accused was attacked and then the body was thrown inside
\nthe house.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.In the early morning, P.W.1 found him dead. She informed it to P.W.8-
\nVeluchamy, the Village Assistant.  P.W.8 in turn informed the same to P.W.7-
\nArichandran, the Village Administrative Officer.  P.W.8 informed about the
\noccurrence to police. P.W.6-Ramaraj, who is working in the Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board, P.W.4-Dhanasekaran and P.W.5-Ramuthai are the residents of
\nSenkapadai.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.P.W.14-Rajamanikam, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk
\nPolice Station, received the telephonic information at about 8.00 A.M. on
\n29.01.2008 and went to the scene of occurrence.  P.W.1-Lakshmi gave Ex.P.1-
\nwritten complaint to P.W.14.  P.W.14 received the complaint and returned to
\nThirumangalam Taluk Police Station at 10.00 A.M. and registered a case in Crime
\nNo.18 of 2008 under Section 302 I.P.C.  Ex.P.9 is the printed F.I.R.  The
\nprinted F.I.R. was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate through P.W.13-
\nRamuthai, Police Constable. She also sent the copy of the F.I.R. to the
\nInvestigating officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Then, the investigation was taken over by P.W.16-Rajendran, Inspector of
\nPolice and he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2-Observation
\nMahazar and Ex.P.11-Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8. Then, he
\nrecovered M.O.1-portion of the cement floor with blood stains and M.O.2-portion
\nof the cement floor without blood stains under Ex.P.3-Mahazar in the presence of
\nthe said witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and
\nprepared Ex.P.12-Inquest Report.  P.W.10-Durairaj took photographs on the body
\nof the deceased Venkitasamy.  M.O.5 series is the Photographs and Negatives.
\nThen, P.W.16 sent the body of the deceased for conducting postmortem.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Postmortem was conducted by P.W.15-Dr.Selvaraj. He examined the body of
\nthe deceased and he gave Ex.P.10-postmortem certificate. On examination he found
\nthe following the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
“External Injuries: 1) A lacerated wound  (Rt) Occipital Bone 4cm x 2cm x 1cm
\ndepth.\n<\/p>\n
2) Deformity of (Rt) leg and Lacerated wound (Rt) leg 3cm x 2cm size.\n<\/p>\n
3) Bone exposed lacerated wound over the (Lt) Leg – Lower third 5cm x 2cm size.\n<\/p>\n
4) Abrasion Left side shoulder\n<\/p>\n
5) Contusion – Two separate contusions over the Right side Back of chest (?
\nStick Injury).\n<\/p>\n
6) # of Lower end of Radius – (Lt) hand.\n<\/p>\n
7) # Ribs on (Rt) side chest.\n<\/p>\n
Internal Injuries:  1)SKULL – # of occipital Bone and Blood clot over the
\nBrain.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7.After postmortem, P.W.16 recovered M.O.6-Blood stained dothi, M.O.7-
\nBlood stained underwear and M.O.8-Loin rope from the body of the deceased
\nthrough  head constable. Then, P.W.16 sent the Material Objects to Court through
\nEx.P.13-Form 95.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.On 30.01.2008, at 9.00 A.M., he arrested A1-Rajapandi near the big
\nbridge at Sengapadi and recorded his voluntary confession statement in the
\npresence of P.W.7 and P.W.8.  The admissible portion of the confession statement
\nof A4 is Ex.P.14.  On the basis of the confession statement, he recovered M.O.3-
\nIron road under Ex.P.4-Mahazar.  Then, at 11.00 A.M., he arrested A2-Gokilamani
\nand A3-Rajakumari, who were identified by A1.  Then, he handed over the accused
\nto judicial custody and the material object to Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.On 31.01.2008 at 6.45 A.M., he arrested A4-Balaraman near the Melakottai
\ndiversion and recorded his voluntary confession statement in the presence of
\nP.W.9-Murugan Village Administrative Officer of Melakottai Village and Village
\nAssistant Pandi. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A4 is
\nEx.P.16.  On the basis of the confession statement,  M.O.4-Manchanathi stick was
\nrecovered under Ex.P.5-Mahazar.  Then, he handed over the accused to judicial
\ncustody and the material object to Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Then, P.W.16 sent a requisition letter to the Judicial Magistrate to
\nsent the material objects to forensic lab for chemical examination. Based on
\nthat the Magistrate sent the properties for chemical examination.  Ex.P.6 is the
\noffice copy of the letter sent by Magistrate to forensic lab.  P.W.11-Balaji was
\nthe Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam.  P.W.12-Mahalakshmi
\nis the Scientific Assistant Grade-I of Madurai Forensic Laboratory.    Ex.P.7 is
\nthe Serological report and Ex.P.8 is the Chemical Examination Report received by
\nthe Court. After enquiring the witnesses and after completing the investigation,
\non 23.04.2001 P.W.16 filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302
\nr\/w 34 of I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15
\nand M.Os.1 to 8 were marked. All the incriminating pieces of evidence let in by
\nthe prosecution witnesses were put to the accused under Section 313(1) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure questioning the accused, and the accused denied the
\nsame as false. There was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned I Additional
\nSessions Judge, Madurai found the appellant\/A1 and A4 guilty under Sections 302
\nr\/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.2,000\/- each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months
\neach. However, the trial Court acquitted A2 and A3 from the charge under Section
\n302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Challenging the judgment of the learned  I Additional Sessions Judge,
\nMadurai the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants\/A1 and A4.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Now the question that needs to be answered in this appeal is whether
\nthe appellants\/A1 and A4 could be held guilty under Section 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.P.W.1-Lakhsmi is the resident of Sengapadai village.  Her son is
\ndeceased Venkidasamy.  A1 to A3 are the children and A4 is the brother-in-law of
\ndeceased Venkidasamy. The motive for the murder of the deceased, according to
\nthe prosecution is on 28.01.2008, prior to the occurrence, the deceased attacked
\nhis wife Lakshmi. So, all the accused joined together and entered into the house
\nof the deceased with the help of ladder and assaulted the victim, which resulted
\nin his death.  Then the body was sent for conducting postmortem and postmortem
\nwas conducted.  So, the death of deceased Venkidasamy is not natural.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Learned Senior counsel Mr.T.K.Gopalan would submit that P.W.1 is not an
\neye witness and a reliable witness.  P.W.1-Lakshmi is a 75 years old lady. She
\nsaw the occurrence. The occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.2-Krishnasamy, the
\nbrother of the deceased and P.W.5-Ramuthai. P.W.1’s evidence was corroborated by
\nP.W.2 and P.W.5.  So, her evidence cannot be rejected as unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted there is doubt in
\nthe prosecution case because F.I.R. is a belated one.  According to the
\nprosecution, on 28.01.2008 at 11.00 P.M., all the accused entered into the house
\nof the deceased and took him out and attacked him with iron rod and stick and
\nthen put him into his house.  On the early morning P.W.1 found his son
\nVenkidasamy dead. Then, she informed the same to P.W.8, the village Assistant
\nand P.W.8 in turn inform the same to P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer.
\nThen, P.W.7 informed the same to Police and P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police came
\nto the scene of occurrence and received the complaint from P.W.1 and the
\ncriminal law was set in motion.  It is true that P.W.1 is an old lady. She is
\nhelpless and the village being a hamlet far away from the police station. She
\nalso affixed thumb impression on the complaint. So, she cannot reach the police
\nstation in the night and lodge the complaint.  So, on the early morning she
\ninformed about the occurrence to the Village Assistant and the Village Assistant
\nin turn inform the same to the Village Administrative Officer. Then the Village
\nAdministrative Officer informed the same to the Police and the police came to
\nthe scene of occurrence and received the complaint.  So, the said delay cannot
\nbe held as fatal to the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that there is
\ncontradictions between the witnesses about the place of complaint. No doubt,
\nP.W.1 and P.W.2 are rustic villagers.  They cannot be expected to face the
\npowerful cross examination of an efficient and able counsel. Further, P.W.1 is
\naged 75 years. Due to lapse of time they may have some lapse of memory.  But
\nabsolutely there is no motive for P.W.1 to spoke against her grand children that
\nthey joined with A4 and attacked the deceased.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\nrepeatedly held that it is the duty of the Court to remove the grain from the
\nchaff. If the said principle is applied to the case on hand, the minor
\ncontradictions in the evidence of rustic villagers cannot affect the case of the
\nprosecution. So, on careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court
\nis of the considered view that since the accused attacked his wife, A1-his son
\nand A4-his brother-in-law attacked him with iron rod and Manchanathi Stick.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Learned counsel for the appellant also raised a doubt about the
\nrecovery of the weapon from A1 and A4.  No doubt P.W.7 has deposed that M.O.3-
\nIron rod and M.O.4-Manchanathi stick were recovered from A1 and P.W.9 has
\ndeposed that M.O.4-Manchanathi stick was recovered from A4. The discrepancies
\nbetween the witnesses regarding the recovery cannot be a ground to reject the
\ncase of the prosecution altogether.  Even if recovery is not recognized, the old
\nlady who spoke against her own close relative that they attacked the deceased
\nwith weapons, which cannot be easily brushed aside. Hence, we find no reason to
\nsuspect the evidence of P.W.1 that A1 attacked the deceased with Iron Rod and A4
\nattacked the deceased with Manchanathi stick.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.Further, on careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court
\nis able to find that there is no motive for A1 and A4 to attack the deceased.
\nFurther, the weapons used are also not deadly weapons. Since the deceased
\nattacked the mother of A1 and sister of A4, they attacked the deceased with iron
\nrod and Manchanathi stick. Section 304 I.P.C. reads as follows:
\n“304.Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whoever commits
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment
\nfor life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
\nten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
\ncaused is done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily
\ninjury as is likely to cause death;\n<\/p>\n
\tor with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
\nten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge
\nthat it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or
\nto cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21.So, on careful consideration of the evidence on record, we are of the
\nconsidered opinion that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
\nappellant\/A1 and A4 due to the attack of the wife of the deceased by the
\ndeceased, attacked the deceased with Iron rod and Manchanathi stick, knowing the
\nconsequences, which resulted in the death of the deceased.  But, they had no
\nintention to murder him. So, they are liable to be punished under Section
\n304(ii) instead of Section 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction
\nof the appellant\/A1 and A4 under Section 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C. by the Trial Court is
\nmodified to one under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and the sentence of life
\nimprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000\/- each in default to undergo Rigorous
\nImprisonment for 2 months each imposed by the trial Court stands modified to 3
\nyears Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000\/- each in default to undergo
\nRigorous Imprisonment for 2 months each. The period of imprisonment already
\nundergone by the appellant\/A1 and A4 shall be given set off.\n<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/01\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.MURGESEN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRL.A.(MD)No.557 OF 2008 1.Rajapandi 2.Balaraman … Appellants\/A1 and A4 Vs State through the Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam […]<\/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-115201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 11 January, 2010 - 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\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-13T10:17:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-13T10:17:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2241,\"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\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-13T10:17:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 11 January, 2010 - 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\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-13T10:17:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-13T10:17:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010"},"wordCount":2241,"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\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010","name":"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-13T10:17:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajapandi-vs-state-through-the-inspector-of-on-11-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajapandi vs State Through The Inspector Of … on 11 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/115201","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=115201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}