{"id":115546,"date":"2005-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005"},"modified":"2014-03-27T20:42:00","modified_gmt":"2014-03-27T15:12:00","slug":"ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 23\/12\/2005\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HON'BLE  MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD) NO.430 of 1996\n\n\n1. Ravi\n2. Sylus\n3.Ravi\n4.Subramaniam alias Aasi\t... \tAppellants\n\n\nvs\n\nState represented by  Inspector of Police\nEranial  Police Station,\nKanyakumari District\nCrime No.10 of 1992)\t\t ...    Respondent\n\n\n\t\tThe criminal appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 19.4.1996\nmade in S.C.No.102\/1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari\nDivision at Nagercoil.\n\n\n!For appellants\t\t...\tMr.G.M.Syed Fasudeen\n\n\n^For respondent\t\t...\tMr.K.Chellapandian,Addl.P.P.\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
A.C.ARUMUGA  PERUMAL ADITYAN,J<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal has been preferred by A1 to A4 in S.C.No.102\/1995 on the file
\nof the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.  There were
\ntotally 10 accused arrayed in the charge sheet pending trial, A10 Lingam alias
\nMuthulingam died and the charge against him abated and A5 to A9 were acquitted
\nby the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil and
\nthe remaining A1 to A4 are the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding this
\nappeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Due to previous enmity, on 7.1.1992 at about 7.15p.m., with a common intention
\nof committing murder of Albert Walter, A1 to A4 had assaulted  the said Albert
\nWalter on the neck, chest, right hand,                                    back,
\nhead and stomach causing instantaneous death.  Against the remaining accused
\ncharge under Section 120(B) read with 302 IPC was framed and against A1 to A4
\ncharge under Section 302 IPC was framed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
\nafter the case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial under Section
\n209 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined. Exs P1 to
\nP30 and M.O.1 to M.O.9 were marked. Except P.W1,P.W.6, P.W.10, P.W.12
\n,P.W.13,P.W.14, P.W.16 to P.W.18 all the remaining witnesses were turned
\nhostile. P.Ws 1to 3 are the occurrence witnesses.  P.W.1 is the brother of the
\ndeceased Albert Walter. He is  an occurrence witness. He would depose in his
\nevidence that on 24.12.1991 while he and his brother deceased Albert Walter were
\nproceeding near Neyoor Hospital, A1 to A4 had threatened his brother Albert
\nWalter.  The motive for the occurrence was also spoken to by P.W1 to the effect
\nthat there was an enmity prevailing over the first accused and one Sasi and that
\nthere is a criminal case pending against the first accused Ravi on the ground
\nthat he had assaulted Sasi with  an Aruval on his leg and that his brother
\nAlbert Walter was an accused in a murder case in which one Kumar was murdered.
\nAccording to P.W.1, the occurrence had taken place on 7.1.1992 at about
\n7.15p.m., near Primary School, while he and his brother Albert Walter and one
\nRanjith Singh  were returning from Neyoor Mission Hospital from north to south.
\nP.W.1  has categorically stated that A1 to A4 chased his brother Albert Walter
\npossessing long knifes( Vettu Kathi) each and near Sahul Hameed’s house, they
\nhold Albert Walter and that A1 Ravi had assaulted Albert Walter on the neck,
\nchin and right, side of the  face with Vettu Kathi and that A2 had assaulted
\nAlbert Walter on the right hand, on the back with Vettu Kathi and A3 had
\nassaulted Albert Walter with Vettu Kathi on the head thrice and A4  had
\nassaulted Albert Walter with Vettu Kathi on the lower abdomen causing serious
\ninjuries, resutling  his instantaneous death.  He has further deposed that the
\noccurrence was witnessed by him, Ranjith Guna Singh and Jayachandran and that in
\nthe place of occurrence, the light in the nearby church and street lights were
\nburning and that he immediately rushed to Eranial Police Station at about
\n8.30p.m.,and prepared ExP1 complaint.  He has also identified that M.O.1 is the
\nshirt and M.O.2 Lungi  were worn  by his brother at the time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  The other occurrence witness namely, Ranjith Guna Singh and Jagadish
\nChandran(the name is wrongly typed as Jayachandran in P.W.13’s deposition) have
\nturned hostile.  P.W.6 is the Observation Mahazar Witness. He would depose that
\nthe Inspector of Police had visited the place of occurrence on 7.1.1992 at about
\n9.15 p.m., and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar and also recovered M.O.3 blood
\nstained sand and M.O.4 sample sand under Ex P3 Mahazar.  P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.9
\nhave turned hostile. P.W.10 is the Doctor who had conducted autopsy on the
\ncorpse of Albert Walter on the basis of ExP14 requisition on 8.1.1992 at about
\n12 noon. ExP15 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by P.W.10. P.W.10 has opined
\nthat due to the injury, the deceased had sustained on the neck and head, he
\nwould have died.  The Doctor has further opined that 13 cut injuries mentioned
\nin Ex P15 would have been caused by Vettu Kathi and that injury Nos. 1 to 4 are
\ngrievous  in nature. P.W.11 is a hostile witness. P.W12 is the then Head
\nConstable of  Eranial Police Station, who had handed over the corpse  of Albert
\nWalter to P.W.10 Doctor for postmortem, who had handed over the shirt and lungi
\nof the deceased to the Inspector of Police after autopsy.  P.W.13 is the Sub
\nInspector of Police, who had registered the First Information Report on the
\nbasis of the complaint preferred  by P.W.1 as Crime No.10\/92 under Section 302
\nIPC and Ex P.16 is the First Information Report. P.W.14 is  the  Photographer
\nwho had taken M.O.6 photos of the corpse and M.O.7 are nagatives for M.O.6
\npositives.  P.W.15 is a hostile witness. P.W.16 is the then Judicial Magistrate,
\nPadmanabhapuram.  He has recorded a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for
\nwitnesses Iyyappan, Selvam and Kaba under Exs P.17 to P.19 respectively. P.W.17
\nis the Inspector of Police, who had conducted  an investigation in this case.
\nP.W.17 would depose that on 7.1.1992 at about 21.15 hours, he visited the place
\nof occurrence and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar. ExP20 rough sketch and
\nconducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatadars and Ex P21 is the inquest
\nreport and examined the witnesses and recorded their statement and on 14.1.1992
\nat about 15.00 hours, he had arrested A1 to A4 and Ex P22 is an admissible
\nportion of the confession statement of A1, on the basis of it, he had recovered
\none Aruval from south bund of Pandarakulam and the remaining three aruvals from
\nthe said Pandarakulam Tank and that they were M.,O8 series under Ex.P.23 Mahazar
\nin the presence of witnesses and he has also seized M.O.9 Car and an Auto and he
\nhas given ExP27 letter of request to the Judicial Magistrate for sending the
\nmaterial objects for chemical examination and Ex P28 is the copy of letter sent
\nby the Judicial Magistrate and  Ex P29 is the chemical analyst’s report and
\nExP30 is the serologist’s report.  The further investigation was taken up by
\nP.W.18 since P.W.17 was transferred. P.W.18 has examined the remaining witnesses
\nand after completing the investigation has filed charge sheet on 9.11.1994. The
\nincriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the  accused
\nto which the accused had stated that the witnesses have deposed falsehood.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The accused have neither examined any witnesses on their side nor
\nproduced any documents.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at
\nNagercoil, after going through the documentary and oral evidence, has come to
\nthe conclusion that charge under Section 302 IPC has been proved against A1 to
\nA4 and convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and acquitted
\nthe remaining accused.  Hence, the  appeal by A1 to A4.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the Judgment
\nof the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil in
\nS.C.No.102\/1995 dated 19.4.1996 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated
\nin the memorandum of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Point:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that P.W.1
\nis the brother of the deceased Albert Walter and that there were enmity
\nprevailing over the accused and P.W.1 and would contend that the evidence of
\nP.W1 is an interested testimony and the evidence  are not corroborated by the
\nother witnesses by name Ranjith Guna Singh, Jagadish Chandran.  Learned counsel
\nin support of his contention would rely on
\nEx P1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1. The learned counsel for the
\nappellants would contend that P.W.1 in his evidence has stated in the first
\nparagraph itself that there was an enmity between the accused and his brother
\nAlbert Walter and that A1 to A4 had criminally intimidated and threatened his
\nbrother on 24.12.1991 while he  and his brother were returning from Neyoor
\nHospital and that even in ExP1 the previous enmity which was prevailing between
\nthe accused and his brother Albert Walter has been mentioned.  A careful reading
\nof Ex P1 and the deposition of P.W1 would go to show that there was enmity
\nprevailing over between A1 to A4 and Albert Walter and that it is nowhere stated
\nin Ex P1  nor in the deposition of P.W1 that A1 to A4 were inimical towards P.W1
\nor vice versa.  Under such circumstances, there cannot be any motive attributed
\nagainst P.W1 to depose falsehood against A1 to A4.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The other contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellants is that the occurrence had taken place , according to the
\nprosecution, in front of one Sahul Hameed’s house. But Sahul Hameed was not
\nexamined in this case.  P.W1 in his cross examination has admitted that A1 to A4
\nhad chased Albert Walter and assaulted him with Vettu Kathi and that he fell
\ndown in front of Sahul Hameed’s house and that the inmates of Sahul Hameed have
\nseen the occurrence through door way but no one has come out of the house.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that even
\naccording to the evidence of P.W1, the said Sahul Hameed has not specifically
\nseen the occurrence but only the  family members of Sahul Hameed had seen the
\noccurrence through door way and immediately, they closed the doors.  As rightly
\nobserved by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at paragraph 17  of his
\nJudgment , there is no valid ground projected by the learned  counsel appearing
\nfor the accused to eschew the evidence of P.W1 who is an ocular witness.  The
\nevidence of  P.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of  P.W.10 the Doctor,
\nwho had conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Albert Walter.  The Doctor had
\nissued Ex P15 Postmortem Certificate wherein he has stated that he would find 13
\ncut injuries on the body of Albert Walter.  The injuries spoken to by P.W1 to
\nthe deceased Albert Walter at the time of occurrence inflicted by A1 to A14
\ntally with the injuries mentioned in Ex P.15 Postmortem Certificate and as
\nspoken to by P.W10, the Doctor who had conducted autopsy.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that as
\nper the evidence of  P.W.10, the Doctor, there was partially digested food
\nparticles found in the stomach of the deceased Albert Walter.  But as per P.W1’s
\nevidence, the deceased   was with him from 4.00 p.m., on 7.1.1992 and according
\nto the prosecution, the occurrence had took place at 7.15p.m., on the same day.
\nBut there is no evidence on record to show that in between 4.00 p.m., and
\n7.15p.m., the deceased  taken any food. So the learned counsel would contend
\nthat the occurrence would not have taken place at 7.15 p.m., as alleged by the
\nprosecution,but it would have been taken place between 1.00 p.m., and 2.00 p.m.,
\nThis contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants will not
\nhold any water because P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that his
\nbrother Albert Walter was with him from 4.00p.m., but he has not  stated that
\nbetween 4.00p.m., to 7.15 p.m., they have not taken any food . There was no
\nsuggestion put to P.W1 to the effect that the deceased had not taken any food
\nbetween 4.00p.m., and 7.15.p.m.,.  Further the evidence of  P.W10 the doctor in
\nthe cross examination would go to show that there was only 10 ml undigested food
\nwas found in the stomach and it will take six to eight hours for digestion of
\nentire food and that the doctor has opined that the death would have occurred
\nfour or five hours after the deceased had taken his food.  Under such
\ncircumstances, it cannot be said that the occurrence should have occurred
\nbetween 1.00p.m.,and 2.00 p.m., as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The other point  raised by the  learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellants is that there was heap of sand collected in front of the house of
\nSahul Hameed and so P.W1 would not have seen the occurrence because the
\noccurrence had occurred in front of the house of  Sahul Hameed.  P.W.6 in his
\ncross examination has stated that  there was heap of sand to the height of 4
\nfeet present near his shop and that there was open space between the house of
\nSahul Hameed and the said heap of sand and that the front door of Sahul Hameed’s
\nhouse  was facing the vacant site.  There is absolutely no contra evidence let
\nin on the side of the accused to show that there was heap of sand between P.W1
\nand the place of occurrence and P.W1 would not have witnessed the occurrence.
\nNot even a suggestion was put to P.W1 at the time of cross examination that he
\nwould not have witnessed the occurrence due to the presence of heap of sand
\nbetween the place where P.W1 was standing and the place where the occurrence had
\ntaken place. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that P.W1 would not have witnessed the occurrence false to the
\nground.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The other point canvassed  before us  by the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the appellants is that there was no sufficient light at the place of
\noccurrence, since the occurrence had taken place at 7.15p.m., and that P.W.1
\nwould not have identified the accused at the time of occurrence.  But P.W1 in
\nhis chief examination itself  in clear terms has stated that there was light in
\nthe nearby church and the street lights near the primary school and lights were
\nburning at the time of occurrence and that he could see the occurrence in the
\nlight.  There is no contra evidence let in on the side of the accused to show
\nthat the occurrence had taken place in  pitch  dark.  The presence of street
\nlights near the place of occurrence was shown in Ex P.20 rough sketch also.  So
\nthis contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants will not
\nhold good. In this case, M.O.8 series, four Vettu Kathis were recovered by the
\nInvestigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on the basis of  Ex
\nP.4 Confession Statement of A1.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for
\nappellants in 1997 Supreme Court Cases(crl)640 (BIR SINGH AND OTHERS -VS- STATE
\nOF UTTAR PRADESH), 1995 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 151(STATE OF HARYANA-vs-
\nINDERAJ AND ANOTHER) ,and 2001(2) Crimes 49(SC) (SOHAN AND ANOTHER-vs- STATE OF
\nHARYANA AND ANOTHER ) are not applicable to the present facts of the case
\nbecause in the above said decisions, it has been held that  the case of the
\nprosecution rests on sole evidence of an interested witness who is inimical to
\nthe accused. As we have already dealt with this point in  earlier   paragraph to
\nthe effect that even though P.W1 is the brother of the deceased Albert Walter
\nonly his brother Albert Walter  was inimical towards A1 to A4,  and there is no
\nevidence on record to show that P.W1 is also inimical towards A1 to A4. If  P.W1
\nwas  inimical towards A1 to A4, A1 to A4 would have  assaulted  P.W1 also   at
\nthe time of  occurrence. Even though, P.W2 and P.W.3 the other two occurrence
\nwitnesses have turned hostile, P.W1, the other occurrence witness has spoken to
\nabout the occcurrence which was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.10
\nthe  Doctor.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tThe learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decisions
\nreported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 437 (CHAVDA JIVANJI CHELAJI AND
\nOTHERS-vs-STATE OF GUJARAT) and contended that the fact that an eye witness was
\nclosely related to the deceased cannot be  a ground for disbelieving his
\ntestimony in a murder case, when the incident had taken place in the property of
\nthe deceased himself.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tUnder such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
\nconclusion arrived at by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari
\nDivision at Nagercoil in S.C.No.102\/95 cannot be set aside for the reasons
\nstated in the grounds of appeal. The point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Judgment in
\nS.C.No.102\/95 on the file of  the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division
\nat Nagercoil dated 19.4.1996 is hereby confirmed. A1 was released on bail as per
\nthe order of  this Court in Crl.M.P.No. 4923 of 1999 dated 19.7.1999, A2 and A4
\nwere released on bail as per the order of this Court in Crl. M.P.No.3872 of 1998
\ndated 23.7.1998. A3 was released on bail as per the order of this Court in
\nCrl.M.P.No.2189 of 2001 dated 25.4.2001.  The above orders of  bail are hereby
\ncancelled and A1 to A4 are to be secured by     the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nKanyakumari  District at Nagercoil by issuing  non bailable warrant and send to
\nprison to undergo the unexpended  portion of the sentence. The bail bonds stand
\ncancelled for A1 to A4.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The  Principal Sessions Judge,
\n     Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police
\n    Eranial Police Station
\n    Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Public Prosecutor,
\n    Madurai Bench at Madras High Court
\n    Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23\/12\/2005 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD) NO.430 of 1996 1. Ravi 2. Sylus 3.Ravi 4.Subramaniam alias Aasi … Appellants vs […]<\/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-115546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavi vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-27T15:12:00+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-27T15:12:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2959,\"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\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-27T15:12:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-27T15:12:00+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-27T15:12:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005"},"wordCount":2959,"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\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005","name":"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-27T15:12:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-of-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravi vs State Represented By Inspector Of … on 23 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115546","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=115546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}