{"id":118060,"date":"2007-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-10-20T04:37:08","modified_gmt":"2017-10-19T23:07:08","slug":"s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 19\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.173 OF 2004\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.204 OF 2004\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.225 OF 2004\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.248 OF 2004\n\nS.Velusamy\t\t\t..  Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t    CA.No.173 of 2004\n\n1.Kombadian rasu alias Rasu\n2.Packiam\n3.Rajaiah\t\t\t..  Appellants in\n\t\t\t\t    CA.No.204 of 2004\n\n1.Thangam\n2.Kasi\n3.Gandhi\t\t\t..  Appellants in\n\t\t\t\t    CA.No.225 of 2004\n\n1.Kasirajan\n2.Sundaram alias Siva\t\t..  Appellants in\n\t\t\t\t    CA.No.248 of 2004\n\n\tVs.\n\nThe State through\nthe Inspector of Police,\nTirunagar Police Station,\nMadurai.\nCrime No.5 of 2001\t\t..  Respondent in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t    all these appeals<\/p>\n
\tThese criminal appeals are preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against
\nthe judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai made in
\nS.C.No.365 of 2002, dated 19.10.2004.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellants  …  Mr.A.Padmanaban for A-12, A-5, A-6
\n\t\t      and A-8 and A-1 and A-2, A-4 & A-7
\n\t\t      in CA.Nos.173 and 204 of 2004 and
\n\t\t      in CA.Nos.225 and 248 of 2004<\/p>\n
\t\t      Mr.A.P.Muthupandian for A-3
\n \t\t      CA.No.225 of 2004\t\t\t<\/p>\n
^For Respondent  …  Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, APP<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment shall govern these four appeals, namely C.A.Nos.173, 204,
\n225 and 248 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The appellants in these four appeals are nine in number.  C.A.No.173 of
\n2004 is filed by A-12. C.A.No.204 of 2004 is filed by A-5, A-6 and A-8.
\nC.A.No.225 of 2004 is filed by A-1 to A-3 and C.A.No.248 of 2004 is filed by A-4
\nand A-7.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The appellants along with three others stood charged and tried in
\nS.C.No.365 of 2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge,
\nMadurai, as narrated below:\n<\/p>\n
Charges :\n<\/p>\n
I\t– A-1 to A-3\t– Section 148 IPC
\nII\t– A-4 to A-12\t– Section 147 IPC
\nIII\t– A-1 to A-3\t– Section 302 IPC
\nIV\t– A-4 to A-12\t– Section 302 r\/w S.149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
V\t– A-4 to A-12\t– Section 427 IPC
\nVI\t– A-4,A-7,A-11\t– Section 436 IPC
\nOn trial, A-1 to A-3 were found guilty under Sections 148 and 302 IPC. A-4 and
\nA-7 were found guilty under Sections 147 and 436 IPC. A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-12
\nwere found guilty under Sections 147 and 427 IPC. A-1 to A-3 were sentenced to
\nundergo 2 years RI under Section 148 IPC and they were also sentenced to undergo
\nlife imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.10000\/-, in default to undergo 2
\nyears RI under Section 302 IPC. A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-12 were sentenced to undergo
\n2 years RI each under Section 147 IPC and for the offence under Section 427 IPC,
\nthey were sentenced to undergo 2 years RI each. A-4 and A-7 were sentenced to
\nundergo 2 years RI under Section 147 IPC and they were also sentenced to undergo
\n7 years RI and to pay a fine of RS.5000\/- each, in default to undergo 2 years RI
\neach under Section 436 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A-9,
\nA-10 and A-11 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Hence,
\nthese four appeals have been filed by the appellants before this court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be
\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.1 is the wife of Andar, since deceased in the incident. P.Ws.2 and 3
\nare the sons and P.W.4 is the mother of the said Andar. They were all the
\nresidents of Karuvelampatti. The accused are all inter se related to each  other
\nand they also belonged to the same place.  On the date of occurrence that was on
\n2.1.1999 at about 7.00 p.m., Andar was returning from his field after watering.
\nAt that time, P.Ws.1 to 4 were inside the house.  When he was just nearing
\nKaliamman Temple, they heard there was hue and cry. Immediately, all the four
\ncame out and they found A-1 to   A-11 holding aruval, Suluku (knife), Knife and
\nstick.  When they came out, A-1 uttered that it was he who was responsible for
\nmurdering my father and kill him.  A-1 and A-3 attacked him with aruval and A-2
\nattacked him with stick. A-5 was having kerosene can at that time. A-7 poured
\nkerosene and A-4 set fire to sheds.  A-8 also poured kerosene on the shed and A-
\n7 set fire to it. The houses were damaged and burnt. All the accused fled away
\nfrom the place of occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 4 were the eyewitnesses, but they were
\nunder grip of fear and terror and they ran away from the scene of occurrence.
\nThey hid themselves till morning hours.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)Andar, the seriously injured proceeded to the respondent police station,
\nwhere he was given medical memo.  Therefrom, he went over to Thirumangalam
\nGovernment Hospital. After initial treatment, he was advised to go to the
\nMadurai Rajaji Government Hospital, where he was admitted.  There was an
\nintimation from the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital to the respondent police
\nstation.  On receipt of the intimation, one Thavasi, the Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Madurai and recorded the statement
\nof the deceased Andar. Ex.P.9 is the statement of the said Andar. Then, the Sub
\nInspector of police came to the police station and reistered the case in Crime
\nNo.6 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 427 and 436 IPC. Ex.P.10, the FIR was
\ndespatched to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and made an inspection in
\nthe presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.1, the observation mahazar and
\nEx.P.11, the rough sketch. He has also recovered the material objects from the
\nplace of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\td)P.W.29, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. Despite
\ntreatment given, the said Andar died on 9.1.1999. Ex.P.12 is the death
\nintimation. The case was converted to Section 302 IPC.  Ex.P.13, the Express
\nreport was despatched to the Court. Then, he proceeded to the Madurai Rajaji
\nGovernment Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in
\nthe presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.14, the
\ninquest report.\n<\/p>\n
\te)On receipt of the requisition, P.W.28, the Doctor attached to the
\nMadurai Medical College Hospital, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the
\ndeceased and has given his opinion in Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate that
\nthe deceased would appear to have died of external injury No.1 and its
\ncorresponding internal injuries and its complications thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)Pending investigation, A-1 to A-4 were arrested on 10.01.1999 in the
\npresence of the witnesses. A-1 voluntarily came forward to give a confessional
\nstatement, which was recorded, the admissible part of which was marked as
\nEx.P.2. Pursuant to the confessional statement, he produced the weapons of
\ncrime, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. The accused were sent for
\njudicial remand.  On 11.1.1999, A-5 was also arrested and he was also sent for
\njudicial remand. On 30.05.1999, A-8 was arrested and on 21.11.1999, A-10 was
\nalso arrested. They were sent for judicial remand. All the M.Os recovered from
\nthe place of occurrence and from the dead body of the deceased and the M.Os
\nrecovered from A-1 pursuant to his confessional statement were subjected to
\nchemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in two
\nreports,  namely Ex.P.6, the Chemical Analyst’s report and Ex.P.7, the
\nSerologist’s report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating
\nOfficer has filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed.  In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined
\n29 witnesses and relied on 14 exhibits and 7 M.Os. On completion of the evidence
\non the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313
\nCr.P.C. Procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence
\nof prosecution witnesses. They flatly denied them as false. No defence witness
\nwas examined. The trial court heard the arguments advanced on either side,
\nscrutinized the materials available and took the view that the prosecution has
\nproved its case and found the accused\/appellant guilty as stated above and
\nawarded punishments as referred to above and has acquitted A-9, A-10 and A-11 of
\nthe charges levelled against them. Hence, these four appeals have been brought
\nforth at the instance of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel
\nhave made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place at about 7.00 p.m.
\non 2.1.1999. According to the prosecution, the injured Andar was taken
\nimmediately to the police station and therefrom, with the medical memo, he was
\ntaken to Thirumangalam Government Hospital.  He was given initial treatment.
\nTherefrom, he was taken to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and he was
\nadmitted there. Despite treatment, he died on 9.1.1999. According to the
\nprosecution, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station went
\nover to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and recorded the statement of the
\ndeceased on 3.1.1999 and that Ex.P.9 cannot be but a fabricated document for
\nmore reasons than one. According to the prosecution, immediately after the
\noccurrence, Andar was taken directly to the police station.  If to be so, there
\nshould have been a report and that document should have come into existence, but
\nit was suppressed. Immediately, therefrom, he was taken to the Thirumangalam
\nGovernment Hospital and there also, there should be an accident register,
\nwherein the earliest statement given by him should have been recorded and the
\nDoctor, who was on duty at Thirumangalam Government Hospital, should have given
\ntreatment to him. But, neither the copy of the accident register was produced
\nnor the Doctor, who gave initial treatment, was examined and hence, this would
\ngo to the root of the matter. The suppression of the accident register copy and
\nalso the non examination of the said medical person would clearly indicate that
\nthe prosecution wanted to suppress the materials, which have come into existence
\nat an early point of time and hence, this would be fatal to the prosecution
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)According to P.W.29, the Investigating Officer, only after an intimation
\nfrom the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police went
\nover there and recorded the statement of Andar. If to be so, this should have
\nbeen contra to the prosecution case. According to the prosecution, he was taken
\nto Thirumangalam Government Hospital along with the medical memo. This would
\nindicate that the prosecution has not come with the truth of the matter. The
\nlearned counsel would further submit that P.W.4 stated that immediately at the
\ntime of occurrence, police personnel were present. It was the police, who took
\nthe injured Andar in a car.  This would indicate that the FIR was nothing, but a
\nfalse one.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)The learned counsel would further submit that P.Ws.1 to 4 could not have
\nbeen the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 are
\nthe sons and P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased. According to them, they
\nwitnessed Andar being attacked by the accused persons.  If to be so, one would
\nnaturally expect the members of the family, who are wife, sons and the mother,
\nto interfere and go to his rescue, but they did not interfere. On the contrary,
\nthey stated that because of fear, they ran to the nearby forest and hid
\nthemselves and came in the next morning and they went to Thirumangalam
\nGovernment Hospital and they came to know that he was taken to the Madurai
\nRajaji Government Hospital and was admitted there. This would go to show that
\nthey could not have seen the occurrence at all.\n<\/p>\n
\td)Added further the learned counsel that the other circumstance is the non
\nrecovery of bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence at the time of
\ninvestigation and also the bloodstained cloths, which according to P.Ws.1 to 3,
\nwere drenched with blood. This would also indicate that such an occurrence has
\nnot taken place as put forth by the prosecution. In the instant case, even as
\nper the prosecution case, at the time of occurrence, there was arson. The
\nInvestigator has categorically admitted that he did not know as to whether any
\nfire extinguishers were brought by the Fire Department and the fire was
\nextinguished.  No witness was examined in this regard at the time of
\ninvestigation or before the Court.  The sketch also did not indicate whether any
\nhouse was damaged, as placed by the prosecution and no witness was also examined
\nto that effect. Thus, so far as Section 427 IPC is concerned, absolutely no
\nevidence is available at all.\n<\/p>\n
\te)Even as per the prosecution case, it was A-1 and A-3, who attacked the
\ndeceased with aruval and A-2 attacked the deceased with the stick. In the
\ninstant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the post-mortem
\nDoctor did not support the prosecution case. According to the post-mortem
\nDoctor, the first injury found in the post-mortem certificate and its
\ncorresponding internal injury and its complications were the cause for death and
\nalso there was septicemia. It is pertinent to point out that the first injury
\nwas actually found in the stomach. According to the eyewitnesses, it was A-2,
\nwho attacked him with stick. The external and internal injury would have been
\ncaused by attacking with the stick. If to be so, the medical evidence adduced by
\nthe prosecution is contrary to the prosecution case. Insofar as A-1 and A-3 are
\nconcerned, they attacked the deceased with aruval and the injuries caused by
\nthem were not fatal, but the injuries were simple. Under these circumstances,
\nthe medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony.  Added further
\nthe learned counsel that the arrest of the accused and the recovery of weapons
\nof crime pursuant to the confessional statement of A-1 were nothing, but only a
\ncooked up affair in order to strengthen the prosecution case, but in vain, when
\nviewed from all other circumstances. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed
\nto prove its case from all angles, but the lower court took an erroneous view.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)The learned counsel would further submit that even assuming that the
\nprosecution has proved the case to an extent that Andar was actually attacked by
\nthe accused at the time of occurrence and he was taken to the Thirumangalam
\nGovernment Hospital and therefrom, he was taken to the Madurai Rajaji Government
\nHospital and despite treatment, he died, the act of A-1 to A-3 would not attract
\nthe penal provisions of Section 302 IPC for the simple reason that the
\nprosecution has failed to prove its case through the medical evidence and the
\nprosecution was unable to show that the medical evidence was in corroboration
\nwith the ocular testimony. Even as per the post-mortem Doctor, despite
\ntreatment, he died and the death would have been caused by the first injury and
\nits corresponding internal injuries and its complications and also due to
\nsepticemia. In the instant case, so far as all the accused are concerned, the
\ninjuries were not fatal and so far as A-2 was concerned, it was he who caused
\nthe first injury and due to its complications and septicemia, the deceased died
\nand there was no direct consequence for the death.  Under these circumstances,
\neven assuming to be so, A-1 and A-3 have caused only simple injury. So far as A-
\n2 is concerned, the act of A-2 would not attract the penal provisions of murder,
\nbut it was done without any intention and under these circumstances, these legal
\naspects of the matter have got to be considered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
\nThe court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has
\ntaken place at about 7.00 p.m. on 2.1.1999 in front of the house of the deceased
\nAndar.  The house of Andar is situated near Kaliamman Temple. According to
\nP.Ws.1 to 4, who have spoken in one voice, when they were all inside the house,
\nthey heard a hue and cry and they came out at the time of occurrence and found
\nthe accused persons were arming with aruval, Suluki(knife) and stick and they
\nhave shouted. At that time, they found A-1 and A-3 attacked the deceased with
\naruval and A-2 attacked him with the stick. While the other accused involved in
\nthe other activities of arson. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution has
\nexamined four witnesses.  It is true, they are close relatives inter se and also
\nclose relatives to the deceased.  The Court is mindful of the caution that when
\nthe witnesses are close relatives, before accepting their evidence, the test of
\ncareful scrutiny has got to be applied.  In the instant case, despite exercise
\nof the test, the Court is satisfied that their evidence inspired the confidence
\nof the Court. They have spoken about the incident.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The first comment made by the learned counsel for the appellants that
\nthese witnesses could not have been the eyewitnesses for the reason that they
\ndid not go to the rescue of the deceased, but they hid themselves in the forest
\nand came only in the next morning and they went to the Government Hospital
\ndirectly and hence, this would indicate that they could not have seen the
\noccurrence at all, has got to be discountenanced.  From the materials available,
\nit could be seen that just one hour prior to the occurrence in question, the
\nfather of A-1 was murdered in a running bus near the Koothiarkundu railway gate.
\nAfter that occurrence, this occurrence followed. According to the witnesses,
\nthey found more than 10 accused along with the weapon of crime.  It is quite
\nnatural that it would pass in the mind of the four persons that they would also
\nbe finished off and thus, they have immediately fled away from the place of
\noccurrence. In a given situation, when one is being attacked by number of
\npersons, the frame of mind of the eyewitnesses would be different and it cannot
\nbe expected to be same. The occurrence has taken place at about 7.00 p.m.  On
\nseeing the accused persons armed with weapons, naturally, they could have been
\nunder a grip of fear and terror.  Immediately, they went to a nearby place and
\nhid themselves and came out in the next morning. Merely because they did not go
\nto his rescue or they did not go to the police station immediately, the same
\ncannot be stated that they could not have seen the occurrence at all. Their
\nevidence, if carefully scrutinized, has inspired the confidence of the court.
\nThe lower court has marshalled their evidence properly and accepted the same.
\nAt this juncture, it is to be pointed out that these witnesses have not spoken
\nabout anything about A-12. Thus, A-12 is out of the crime scene.  Hence, it
\ncould be recorded that so far as A-12 is concerned, no case is made out by the
\nprosecution from the beginning till the end of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The other contention was that the FIR could not have come into
\nexistence as put forth by the prosecution.  The reasons adduced by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants are narrated above. The Court has to necessarily
\ndisagree with the learned counsel for the appellants. After the occurrence has
\ntaken place, the deceased Andar was taken to Thirumangalam Government Hospital
\nand therefrom, he was taken to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. The
\nDoctor, who gave treatment at Thirumangalam Government Hospital, has not been
\nexamined and the accident register copy has not been produced.  At this
\njuncture, the learned counsel for the appellants wanted to stress on this aspect
\nof the matter and would further submit that while the occurrence has taken place
\nat 7.00 p.m. on 2.1.1999, the statement of the deceased was recorded on 3.1.1999
\nat about 10.45 a.m. and thus, there was a long delay, which remained
\nunexplained, which coupled with the non production of the accident register copy
\nand the non examination of the medical person, who examined Andar at the
\nearliest at the Thirumangalam Government Hospital would go to show that the FIR
\nis a fabricated one. Now, it is pertinent to point out that originally, the
\ninjuries found on the deceased were simple and the case was registered only for
\nSection 324 IPC and under these circumstances, the Investigator thought it fit
\nnot to produce the earlier documents and this cannot in any way affect the
\nprosecution case. When the matter was brought to the notice of the police, the
\npolice has given a memo and sent the deceased to the hospital and the Sub
\nInspector of Police has gone to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital in the
\nnext morning and recorded the statement of the deceased.  At that stage, it was
\nnot a grave crime, but one for Section 324 IPC.  Under these circumstances, the
\ncourt is of the considered opinion that the delay, even if it is noticed, is in
\nno way affect the prosecution case. The case was not only registered for Section
\n324 IPC, but also the other provisions were there. Only after the death of Andar
\nat the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, the case was altered to Section 302
\nIPC and the investigation was taken up by P.W.29 and the murder investigation
\nwas on and was completed. At this juncture, so far as Sections 436 and 427 IPC
\nare concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants,
\nall flaws are found in the investigation and no witness worth mentioning in this
\nregard was interrogated and no statement was recorded. Further, in a given case
\nlike this, when damages by way of arson were brought to the notice, the
\ninvestigation in this regard should have been conducted properly. The earliest
\ninvestigation in this regard did not bring any material before the Court.  Even
\nthe fire department personnel have not been examined. The Investigating Officer
\nhas gone to an extent to state that he had no knowledge about the same, which is
\na matter of surprise to be noted. Insofar as the charge under Sections 427 and
\n436 IPC, the Court has to record that the prosecution has not come with
\nnecessary and acceptable and convincing evidence to find the accused guilty in
\nthis regard and hence, they are entitled for acquittal in respect of the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In the instant case, so far as the medical opinion is concerned, the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants, pointing to the medical opinion, would
\nsubmit that the prosecution has not proved its case and the medical opinion did
\nnot corroborate the ocular testimony. This court is unable to agree with him.
\nThe medical evidence what was available before the court is the post-mortem
\ncertificate and the evidence of P.W.28, the Doctor. According to him, injury
\nNo.1 and its corresponding internal injury and its complications and also
\nsepticemia were the reasons for the death of the deceased.  P.Ws.1 to 4 have
\ncategorically stated that at the time when the occurrence has taken place, it
\nwas A-1 and A-3, who attacked the deceased with aruval and A-2 attacked the
\ndeceased with the stick. In the instant case, so far as the act of A-1 to A-3
\nare concerned, the Court is of the considered opinion that they cannot be given
\nseparate treatment, but all cumulative effects have got to be considered. So far
\nas the others are concerned, it is doubtful whether they have acted with any
\nintention to cause death, but at the same time, the death was caused not only
\ndue to the injuries sustained, but also its corresponding internal injuries and
\nits complications and also due to septecemia. Hence, A-1 to A-3 have got to be
\nfound guilty under Section 326 IPC and awarding punishment of 5 years RI would
\nmeet the ends of justice. Insofar as the charge under Section 147 IPC is
\nconcerned, the lower court has not believed the case of prosecution in respect
\nof A-9, A-10 and A-11. So far as the others are concerned, the lower court has
\naccepted the case of prosecution that they are members of unlawful assembly.
\nAccording to P.Ws.1 to 4, at the time of occurrence, they were present at the
\nscene of occurrence and thus, it is clear that they were all members of
\nunlawful assembly. The lower court has given two years RI for the offence under
\nSection 147 IPC in respect of A-4 to A-8 and has also given 2 years RI under
\nSection 148 IPC in respect of A-1 to A-3.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 to
\nA-3 under Section 302 IPC is modified to one under Section 326 IPC and they are
\nsentenced to undergo 5 years RI.  The judgment of conviction and sentence
\nimposed on A-1 to A-3 under Section 148 IPC is sustained. The judgment of
\nconviction and sentence imposed on A-4 to A-8 under Section 147 IPC is
\nsustained. The conviction and sentence imposed on A-5, A-6 and A-8 under Section
\n427 IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge.  The conviction
\nand sentence imposed on A-4 and A-7 under Section 436 IPC are set aside and they
\nare also acquitted of the said charge. The fine amount, if any paid by A-4 and
\nA-7 under Section 436 IPC, shall be ordered to be refunded to them. The period
\nof sentence already undergone by A-1 to A-8 shall be given set off. The sentence
\nimposed on A-1 to A-3 under Sections 148 and 302 IPC is ordered to run
\nconcurrently. The conviction and sentence imposed on A-12 under Sections 147 and
\n427 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges levelled against
\nhim. A-12 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in
\nconnection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.It is reported that except A-3, all other accused are on bail.  Hence,
\nthe Sessions Judge shall take steps to secure A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-8 and commit
\nthem to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the result, C.A.No.173 of 2004 is allowed. With the above
\nmodification in conviction and sentence, C.A.Nos.204, 225 and 248 of 2004 are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
vvk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The I Addl. Sessions Judge,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Tirunagar Police Station,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/04\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.173 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.204 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.225 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NOS.248 OF 2004 S.Velusamy .. […]<\/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-118060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 - 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\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-19T23:07:08+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T23:07:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4284,\"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\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\",\"name\":\"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T23:07:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 - 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\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-19T23:07:08+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T23:07:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007"},"wordCount":4284,"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\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007","name":"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T23:07:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-velusamy-vs-the-state-through-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Velusamy vs The State Through on 19 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/118060","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=118060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}